Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. Hill, 1-456
| Decision Date | 14 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-456,1-456 |
| Citation | 196 So.2d 233 |
| Parties | HOTEL ROOSEVELT CO., Inc., a corporation, and Wm. H. Johnston, Anne B. Johnston, Wm. H. Johnston, Jr., Jane Grubb Johnston, Donald W. Howell, Jule Ann Howell, Donald R. Burnett, Mary R. Burnett, James J. Patton, Mary Patton, John Patton, Jr., and Lucille Patton, Petitioners, v. Marie L. HILL and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, and John A. Rush and Arthur T. Boone, Jacksonville, for petitioners.
Mark Hulsey, Jr., Charles Cook Howell, Jr., Nathan Bedell, Jack F. Wayman, Jacksonville, and W. S. Frates, Miami, for respondents.
Petitioner, Hotel Roosevelt, asks this court to review by way of common law certiorari the trial court's order denying a motion to dismiss the respondents' complaint. We granted oral argument only upon the question of jurisdiction. Petitioner seeks to distinguish the unbroken line of appellate decisions denying certiorari from such an order upon the theory that petitioners should not be burdened with the tremendous expense of defending the voluminous complaints filed by respondents and others.
By their brief and argument, petitioners reason that this court's opinion in Romedy v. Johnston, 193 So.2d 487 (Fla.App. 1st, 1967), is applicable to the instant complaint. In Romedy the trial court and this court were factually concerned with a plaintiff who occupied the status of a licensee, whereas in the instant cause the complaint reflects that plaintiffs hold the status of business invitees. It was not the intention of this court in its decision in Romedy to prejudge the issues involved in the instant and related causes arising out of the same catastrophe.
The appellate courts of this state have in many decisions refused to allow the extraordinary remedy of common law certiorari to be utilized by litigants as a vehicle for interlocutory review in common law actions. We hold that the remedy of common law certiorari is not available to petitioners in this case. In order that there be no misunderstanding of this decision, it is emphasized that we have only concerned ourselves with the question of jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion we have not considered the question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of plaintiffs' complaint.
By applicable provisions of the Constitution of the State of Florida, the Supreme Court possesses the rule-making power and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage
...v. Feldman, 351 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shupack, 335 So.2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. Hill, 196 So.2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); But see Radio Communications Corp. v. Oki Electronics of America, Inc., 277 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Lovi v. ......
-
Hill v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company
...to fight the fire, inhaled quantities of smoke, and as a result suffered a heart attack and died. Subsequently in Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. Hill, 196 So.2d 233 (Fla.Ct.App.1967), a case arising from the same fire in which both the instant appellant and appellee were parties, the court made pla......
-
Desantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass'n
...62 So. 3d at 1134 ("It is generally inappropriate to review a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss."); Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. Hill , 196 So. 2d 233, 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967) (denying petition for certiorari because there was no jurisdiction to review denial of motion to dismiss compla......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Arnett
...law certiorari may be utilized by litigants as a vehicle for interlocutory review in common law actions (see Hotel Roosevelt Company, Inc. v. Hill, 196 So.2d 233 (Fla.App.1st, 1967). The fourth defense contained in the petitioner's amended answer alleged substantially that the plaintiff had......