UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
GILDA DAHLBERG, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BROR GUSTAVE DAHLBERG, DECEASED, APPELLEE
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 Florida Supreme Court quashed an appeal from the United States, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the underlying district court decision did not satisfy any of the constitutional prerequisites for appellate review, namely: initial passage on the validity of a statute or constitutional provision.
The Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The court's appellate jurisdiction over district court decisions is strictly limited to those decisions that initially pass on the validity of a state or federal statute or treaty, or initially construe a controlling provision of the State or Federal Constitution. None of these prerequisites were satisfied in the record.
“Our jurisdiction in appeals from the district courts is limited to those decisions which initially pass on the validity of a state statute, or Federal statute or treaty or initially construe a controlling provision of the State or Federal Constitution.”
Establishes the strict jurisdictional limitation for Florida Supreme Court appellate review of district court decisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe United States appealed a decision from the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in a case involving Gilda Dahlberg as executrix of an estate.…
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 Statutory Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
A motion has been made to quash this appeal from a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District,1 on the ground we have no jurisdiction to entertain it.
Our jurisdiction in appeals from the district courts is limited to those decisions which initially pass on the validity of a state statute, or Federal statute or treaty or initially construe a controlling provision of the State or Federal Constitution.2 An examination of the decision under consideration clearly establishes that none of said prerequisites can be found.
In its brief in opposition to the motion to quash the United States argues that the 'appeal “presents several important and substantial questions for decision by this Court.” Even if it does — a doubtful premise by the record — it cannot confer jurisdiction. It is also asserted that the questioned decision passes on the validity of a state statute. We do not find this to be the case, but if it did, we would not have jurisdiction because of the requirement of the Constitution that, in order to be entitled to appeal, such court must have initially passed upon such statutp. Again, the government says' the case is clearly reviewable by cer-*586tiorari because it presents a question of great public interest. The answer to this contention is that this is an appeal and not certiorari, and even if it were certiorari, the district court did not certify it to us as required by the Constitution and rules.3
For these several reasons the appeal is quashed.
THOMAS, C. J„ and TERRELL, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- Susco CAR Rental Sys. OF Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- United States v. Gilda Dahlberg, 115 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)