Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Johnson, 351 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), or a writ of prohibition. This court has no authority through a writ of prohibition to review a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the defendant’s affirmative defense of statute of limitations. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ that is extremely narrow in scope and operation. It exists to prevent “an inferior tribunal from acting in excess of jurisdiction but not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.” English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293, 297 (Fla.1977). When a trial court makes an erroneous ruling on a statute of limitations defense, that error, like any other error concerning an affirmative defense, can be corrected on appeal from a final order. Cf. Mandico v. Taos Constr., 605 So.2d 850 (Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>). Although this court in Swartzman v. Harlan, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding state is required to raise procedural bar as affirmative defense or it is waived (B) holding that neither common law nor workers disability compensation act imposed affirmative duty on employer to preserve evidence which might be used in employees thirdparty liability action (C) holding that prohibition may not be used to raise affirmative defense of workers compensation immunity (D) holding that the exclusivity of workers compensation is an affirmative statutory defense which must be timely raised or it is waived (E) holding that the coemployee immunity provision in workers compensation law was constitutional
Output (English): holding that the coemployee immunity provision in workers compensation law was constitutional