Case Name: JACK'S FRUIT COMPANY, not Inc., Petitioner, v. GROWERS MARKETING SERVICE, INC., et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1972-04-05
Citations: 261 So. 2d 171
Docket Number: No. 41880
Parties: JACK’S FRUIT COMPANY, not Inc., Petitioner, v. GROWERS MARKETING SERVICE, INC., et al., Respondents.
Judges: ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 261
Pages: 171–172

Head Matter:
JACK’S FRUIT COMPANY, not Inc., Petitioner, v. GROWERS MARKETING SERVICE, INC., et al., Respondents.
No. 41880.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 5, 1972.
Rehearing Denied May 17, 1972.
Britt Whitaker, Tampa, for petitioner.
M. Craig Massey, of Langston & Massey, Lakeland, Doyle Conner, Commissioner of Agriculture; and Robert Crittenden of Department of Agriculture, Winter Haven, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jack's Fruit Company has filed with this Court its petition for writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, prohibition, seeking to vacate and stay enforcement of a mandate of the District Court of Appeal, Second District entered pursuant to that court's opinion in Growers Marketing Service, Inc. v. Conner, 249 So.2d 486 (Fla.App.2d, 1971). We issued the rule nisi.
In essence, petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the District Court to hear and consider the merits of the dispute between itself and Growers Marketing Service. The facts of the case are adequately set out in the opinion of the District Court, and need not be repeated here. Now, with the return of Growers Marketing Service before us as well as the relevant portions of the record, and briefs of both parties, it is our opinion that the District Court did indeed have jurisdiction, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 120.31, F.S.A. (providing for review of agency orders by certiorari to the ap propriate district court) to hear and decide the merits of the dispute.
The remaining issues raised by relator have been considered and found to be without merit.
Accordingly, the rule nisi heretofore issued is discharged and the petition is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.