STATE EX REL. RONALD KOVNOT, RELATOR,
v.
RALPH B. FERGUSON, JR., JUDGE, ETC., RESPONDENT
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 court denied the relator's petition for a writ of prohibition, treating it also as a petition for certiorari or mandamus, finding it untimely and improper.
Relator sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a judge from trying him for false acknowledgment as a notary public. His prior application for the sam…
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 Appellate Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, Justice.
Relator has requested that we issue a writ of prohibition to prevent a judge of the Dade County circuit court from trying relator on an information charging him with false acknowledgment as a notary public. The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied.
Relator originally sought a writ of prohibition for the same purpose in the Third District Court of Appeal. His application to that court was denied.1 Nothing in the Constitution gives us jurisdiction to afford relator a second opportunity to obtain the same writ.2 Treating Relator’s request as a petition for certiorari or a petition for a writ of mandamus,3 we also conclude that the petition should be denied. The petition was not filed within the time required for certiorari.4 The petition is improper as a request for mandamus since that remedy and prohibition are co-equal jurisdictional writs which would operate with identical effect to protect Relator. To grant a writ of mandamus when Relator has already been denied a writ of prohibition would be tantamount to according Relator two appellate opportunities, just as he sought two appellate forums, to obtain the same relief.
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DE-KLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur. . 306 So. 2d 226 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1975).
. See Fla.Const. art. V, §§ 3(b)(4) and 4(b) (3). Of., State ex rel. Soodhalter v. Baker, 248 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1971) (construing the predecessor constitutional provision) ; State ex rel. Burns v. Amidon, 249 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1971).
. “[N]o cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought.” Fla. Const., art. Y, § 2(a).
. Fla.App. Rule 4.5(c).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1977)…be received against him upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. [2] We need not now decide whether the District Court of Appeal might also be a proper forum in an appropriate case of this kind. See generally State ex rel. Kovnot v. Ferguson, 313 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1975); State ex rel. Brewer v. Pettie, 294 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); State ex rel. Sentinel Star Co. v. Lambeth, 192 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). In any event, "once a petitioner seeks relief in a particular court by means of a petiti…
-
Pressley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 367 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1979)…adopted the federal district court’s conclusion to that effect. 540 F. 2d at 821 n.11. . See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372, 374 (Fla.1977). . Crawford v. Wainwright, 222 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1969). See also State ex rel. Kovnot v. Ferguson, 313 So. 2d 710 (Fla.1975). . See Lake v. Lake, 103 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1958), which explains that in Florida every litigant is entitled to one appeal as a matter of right and that, unless the case is one which falls within our supervisory appellate jurisdiction under…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. The Honorable Paul Baker, 248 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1971)
- State of Fla. ex rel. T. David Burns v. Honorable Roy H. Amidon, 249 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1971)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Ronald Kovnot v. The Honorable Ralph B. Ferguson, Jr., 306 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)