FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE JAMES R. STEWART, JR., AS JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LETA M. MORNINGSTAR, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of prohibition is hereby denied.
GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
I would grant the petition for writ of prohibition because I do not believe this court’s earlier action in reversing an apparently excessive taking of certain parcels affected the validity or status of the taking of other parcels.
PER CURIAM.
We write to clarify our per curiam December 18, 1984, order denying Florida Power & Light Company’s petition for writ of prohibition.
We denied the writ because such writ is traditionally used sparingly, and only to forestall actions of public officials not yet taken. The effect of granting a writ of prohibition in the instant case would have been to quash an interlocutory order already issued. We nevertheless agree with Chief Judge Anstead’s stated belief, in his dissent, that our reversal of an apparently excessive taking, in Klatt v. Florida Power & Light Company, 414 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), left intact the simultaneous taking of other parcels. In fact, since the taking of the latter parcels was not then appealed, that taking was effectively affirmed. in Klatt, and should not now be revisited. “The law of the case precludes relitigation of all issues necessarily ruled upon by the court, as well as of all issues upon which appeal could have been taken, but which were not appealed.” State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (emphasis in original).
ANSTEAD, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sparkman v. McCLURE, 498 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1986)…the denial of a writ of prohibition and a separate appeal from his conviction. A writ of prohibition, however, is an extraordinary writ that is used sparingly to forestall the future actions of public officials. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Stewart, 468 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Prohibition is preventative, not corrective. Thus, it cannot be utilized to revoke an order already entered, and the writ will not lie where the proceedings below have already been completed. State ex rel. Sarasota County ¶. Boy…
-
State v. Schreiber, 561 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…m exercising jurisdiction in the future to conduct a judicial inquiry into the treatment and care of patients at SFSH, prohibition is appropriate. See Nourse, 437 So. 2d at 221; Sepe, 291 So. 2d at 108. See also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Stewart, 468 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). With respect to preventing the Broward County Public Defender from exceeding the scope of his authority by making motions on behalf of SFSH patients whom he has not been appointed to represent, quo warranto is appropriate. See B…
Authorities Cited
- Kingsway Condo. Apts. NO. 1, Inc. v. Kingsway Builders, Inc., 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- State v. Stabile, 443 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Klatt v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 414 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)