HELENE SUZETTE BAPTISTE AND JOSEPH HENRY BAPTISTE, PETITIONERS,
v.
HONORABLE TOM JOHNSON, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, PROBATE DIVISION, AND FREDERICK NORMAN STEPHERSON, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ARTHUR L. STEPHERSON, DECEASED, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied because it is inappropriate for the relief sought and improperly filed.
[1] A writ of prohibition is a narrow remedy to be employed with great caution and only in emergencies.
[2] Prohibition may only be granted when a lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner sought a writ of prohibition against a non-judicial respondent, directing the trial court to undo a prior action.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This matter is distressing for several reasons. First, prohibition has been sought — a remedy that is so judicially traumatic that just the issuance of an order to show cause effects a stay of the proceedings in the trial court. See Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.100(f). The Supreme Court said in this regard:
In Florida, the courts have consistently determined, in accord with the historical understanding and background of the writ of prohibition, that it is meant to be very narrow in scope, to be employed with great caution and utilized only in emergencies English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla.1977).
It is patently clear from the petition that whatever remedy may be available to petitioner, prohibition is inappropriate. Second, petitioner has named a non-judicial respondent; namely, the personal representative of an estate, notwithstanding the following language in English:
Prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that a lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction.
Id. at 296. Third, the petition is directed at what the trial court has already done; and English pointedly recites that the writ is:
preventive and not corrective in that it commands the one to whom it is directed not to do the thing which the supervisory court is informed the lower tribunal is about to do. Its purpose is to prevent the doing of something, not to compel the undoing of something already done. It cannot be used to revoke an order already entered. State ex rel. Harris v. McCauley, 297 So. 2d 826 (Fla.1974), State ex rel. R.C. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Boyd et al., 114 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1959), State ex rel. Shailer v. Booher, 241 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
Id. at 298. Fourth, the petition is untimely. Finally, counsel for petitioner has misused the term “emergency” on the face of his petition, causing the clerks and judges of this court to stop what they were doing immediately to attend to this alleged problem. Accordingly, we deny the petition.
BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koulianos v. Phillips, 516 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…and ministerial. State ex rel. Swearingen v. Railroad Commissioners of Florida, 79 Fla. 526, 84 So. 444, 445 (1920). Accord State ex rel. Turner v. Earle, 295 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1974); Owen v. Bond, 83 Fla. 495, 91 So. 686 (1922); Baptiste v. Johnson, 434 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The Tarpon Springs Board of Commissioners was not acting in a judicial, or even quasi-judicial, function when it set on its public meeting agenda the matter of whether to reinstate Roy Davis to his former position. In light of…
Authorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- State of Fla. ex rel. R. C. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Boyd, 114 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1959)
- Simonet v. Simonet, 241 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Philip S. Shailer v. Hon. Stephen R. Booher, 241 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)