Case Name: Robert L. SHEVIN, Attorney General, and as Head of the Department of Legal Affairs, State of Florida, Petitioner, v. CENVILLE COMMUNITIES, INC., et al., Respondents; Robert L. SHEVIN, Attorney General, and as Head of the Department of Legal Affairs, State of Florida, Petitioner, v. JUDGES OF the DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, of the State of Florida, Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-10-21
Citations: 338 So. 2d 1281
Docket Number: Nos. 47644, 47375
Parties: Robert L. SHEVIN, Attorney General, and as Head of the Department of Legal Affairs, State of Florida, Petitioner, v. CENVILLE COMMUNITIES, INC., et al., Respondents. Robert L. SHEVIN, Attorney General, and as Head of the Department of Legal Affairs, State of Florida, Petitioner, v. JUDGES OF the DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, of the State of Florida, Respondents.
Judges: OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 338
Pages: 1281–1283

Head Matter:
Robert L. SHEVIN, Attorney General, and as Head of the Department of Legal Affairs, State of Florida, Petitioner, v. CENVILLE COMMUNITIES, INC., et al., Respondents. Robert L. SHEVIN, Attorney General, and as Head of the Department of Legal Affairs, State of Florida, Petitioner, v. JUDGES OF the DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, of the State of Florida, Respondents.
Nos. 47644, 47375.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 21, 1976.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Rod Tennyson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles S. Ruberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
D. L. Middlebrooks, of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Graff, Mabie, Rosenbloum & Magie, Pensacola, and Sam Spector and Cynthia S. Tunnicliff of the Law Office of Sam Spector, Tallahassee, for respondents.
Alan S. Becker, of Becker & Poliakoff, Miami Beach, for amicus curiae..

Opinion:
ADKINS, Justice.
The Department of Legal Affairs initiated administrative proceedings under Ch. 501, Florida Statutes, against certain condominium developers. After the complaint was filed, the developers filed prohibition proceedings in the District Court of Appeal, First District. While the proceedings were pending in the District Court of Appeal, the Department of Legal Affairs sought a writ of prohibition in this Court seeking to halt the prohibition proceedings in the District Court of Appeal.
The District Court of Appeal entered a writ of prohibition. The Department of Legal Affairs sought a review of this decision by certiorari, contending that it conflicted with other decisions, and affected a class of constitutional officers'. We treated the suggestion for writ of prohibition as a petition for certiorari, consolidated the causes and issued the writs of certiorari.
Upon review of the record, it appears that this writ of prohibition was directed only to the proceeding against the developers and prohibited the Department of Legal Affairs from continuing with the previously filed administrative complaint. The prohibition proceedings in the District Court of Appeal being directed solely to the pending administrative proceedings, there is no conflict of decisions, nor does the decision affect a class of constitutional officers. The writs of certiorari were improvidently issued, and are, therefore, discharged.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
ENGLAND, J., concurs with an opinion, with which OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, J., concur.