St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis
| Decision Date | 13 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59245,59245 |
| Citation | 392 So.2d 1304 |
| Parties | ST. PAUL TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Floyd E. DAVIS, Jr., Martin R. West, Jr., and Louis C. Paladini, not individually but as Trustees of Mortgage Investors of Washington, foreign business trust, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Carleton L. Weidemeyer, of Wightman, Weidemeyer, Jones & Turnbull, Clearwater, and Robert Knox, of Atwood & Hurst, San Jose, Cal., for petitioner.
James D. Wing and J. Brent Walker, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Tampa, for respondents.
By way of a petition under the "all writs necessary" provision of article V, section 3(b)(7), Florida Constitution (1980), filed after April 1, 1980, petitioner seeks review of a district court decision affirming per curiam without opinion the trial court's decision. Respondents have moved to dismiss the petition on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's alternate petition for "conflict" review filed under article V, section 3(b)(3) from this same per curiam affirmance was dismissed sua sponte by this Court by order, 385 So.2d 761 (Fla. 1980), because the new section 3(b)(3) does not permit our review of district court decisions which merely read in their entirety: See Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 1980).
We will not allow the "all writs necessary" provision of section 3(b)(7) to be used to circumvent the clear language of section 3(b)(3) and our holding in Jenkins v. State that we lack jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the several district courts of appeal of this state rendered without opinion when the basis for such review is an alleged conflict of that decision with another. The all writs provision of section 3(b)(7) does not confer added appellate jurisdiction on this Court, and this Court's all writs power cannot be used as an independent basis of jurisdiction as petitioner is hereby seeking to use it. Besoner v. Crawford, 357 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1978); Shevin ex rel. State v. Public Service Commission, 333 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1976).
We are without jurisdiction in this matter, and, accordingly, we grant respondents' motion and dismiss petition for review under the "all writs necessary" provision of article V, section 3(b)(7), Florida Constitution.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Esty v. Jones
...all writs jurisdiction, the petition is dismissed. See Williams v. State, 913 So.2d 541, 543-44 (Fla. 2005); St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1980). To the extent the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus, the petition is dismissed. See Mathews v. Crews, 132 So.3......
-
Sims v. State
...we must have an independent basis for jurisdiction. See Williams v. State, 913 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.2005); St. Paul Title Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 1980). The majority treats the notice as one seeking review based on express and direct conflict. This is an appropriate u......
-
Persaud v. State
...of written opinion supporting its per curiam affirmance. After discussing the decisions in both Jenkins and St. Paul [Title Insurance Corp. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304 (Fla.1980)], this Court concluded that it was without jurisdiction to entertain petitioner Grate's Id. at 978 (citations omitt......
-
Fla. House of Representatives v. League of Women Voters of Fla.
...conferred elsewhere in the constitution.” Williams v. State, 913 So.2d 541, 543 (Fla.2005); see also St. Paul Title Ins. Co. v. Davis, 392 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla.1980) (“The all writs provision of section 3(b)(7) does not confer added appellate jurisdiction on this Court, and this Court's al......