JOHN TIVAS, ET AL.,
v.
ANNA M. TIVAS
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.
This case involves a petition for a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order from a lower chancery court. The Florida Supreme Court granted the writ, but then granted a motion to strike the respondent's answer and affidavits filed in the Supreme Court, indicating that the review would proceed solely on the record from the lower court.
The court held that the review of an interlocutory order via writ of certiorari is limited to the record from the lower court. The court granted the motion to strike the respondent's answer and affidavits filed in the Supreme Court.
“The effect of the writ is to bring up the record as it appears in the court below to review the order, or orders, complained of and nothing more.”
Establishes the scope of review for a writ of certiorari.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order from a lower chancery court. The Supreme Court granted the writ. The resp…
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 Striking Pleadings cases and more on FLexlaw
Petition for writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order entered by the Chancellor in a chancery cause was presented and granted. The effect of the writ is to bring up the record as it appears in the court below to review the order, or orders, complained of and nothing more. After the writ is granted and shall have been served, the cause proceeds in this Court just as such matters have heretofore proceeded on appeal. No additional pleadings are contemplated here and the issues and parties remain the same as they were when the order complained of was entered in the court below. This does not preclude *386filing of motion to quash the writ if there be cause for such motion.
In this case motion to quash has been filed. The motion is denied.
There have been filed here also what has been termed Answer to Petition and certain affidavits not appearing in the record in the court below.
■ Motion and proof of' notice of hearing thereon to strike the so-called answer, and affidavits are before us and on consideration thereof the motion is granted.
Briefs on the merits will be filed under the rules relating to cases reviewed on appeal.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J.,- concur.
Ci-iapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
■Justices Whitfield and.Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. THE City OF Miami, 155 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1944)…g bonds for the purpose of refunding outstanding bonded indebtedness that has heretofore been refunded. That question is concluded here. Richard v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 146 Fla. 349, 1 So. (2nd) 202; City of Miami v. State, et al., 139 Fla. 598, 191 So. 774; State v. City of Orlando, 126 Fla. 251, 170 So. 887. The appeal is from the validating decree and the question is whether or not the City of Miami is authorized to issue and deliver immediately the proposed $7,600,000 new refunding Bonds. 1944 Ser…1 / 2
-
Richard v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 146 Fla. 349 (Fla. 1941)…that none of the outstanding bonds were in default and that the issue proposed was for the purpose of refunding bonds already refunded is not material. State v. City of Orlando, 126 Fla. 251, 170 So. 887; City of Miami v. State, et al, 139 Fla. 598, 191 So. 774. There is likewise no merit to the contention that the proposed refunding bonds must be approved by a vote of the freeholders as required by Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution. State v. City of Clermont, 143 Fla. 434, 196 So. 850. Section 2…