Case Name: STATE of Florida ex rel., Willie A. CARTER, Relator, v. Honorable John T. WIGGINTON, Chief Judge, and the other Honorable Judges of the District Court of Appeal, First District, et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1969-03-19
Citations: 221 So. 2d 409
Docket Number: No. 37712
Parties: STATE of Florida ex rel., Willie A. CARTER, Relator, v. Honorable John T. WIGGINTON, Chief Judge, and the other Honorable Judges of the District Court of Appeal, First District, et al., Respondents.
Judges: ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON ADKINS and CALDWELL (Retired), JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 221
Pages: 409–414

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida ex rel., Willie A. CARTER, Relator, v. Honorable John T. WIGGINTON, Chief Judge, and the other Honorable Judges of the District Court of Appeal, First District, et al., Respondents.
No. 37712.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 19, 1969.
Rehearing Denied May 5, 1969.
Donald Feldman, of Feldman & Abram-son, Miami, for relator.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Chastain, Asst. Atty. Gen., Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, and Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This cause is here on suggestion for writ of prohibition.
Relator filed suggestion for writ of prohibition in the Circuit Court alleging the Florida Industrial Commission "as it is presently constituted, is improperly constituted and as such does not have proper jurisdiction" of a matter then on review by the Commission. The Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ for the reason it did not have appellate jurisdiction to review Workmen's Compensation orders. The Circuit Court denied the motion and Respondents filed in this Court a suggestion for writ of prohibition, alleging the Chancellor was exceeding his jurisdiction. This Court denied the suggestion and, subsequently, after a return to the Circuit Court's order to show cause had been filed and on motions by Relator and Respondents for summary judgment, the Chancellor held, in substance, the Commission was illegally constituted and entered its peremptory writ of prohibition.
Respondents appealed to the District Court of Appeal, First District, and the cause was duly argued. Pending disposi tion of the appeal, Relator filed and the District Court denied a suggestion of lack of jurisdiction. The District Court then filed its order and opinion on the merits of the cause, reversing and remanding, holding the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to issue prohibition to the full Commission for the reason it was not a court of appellate jurisdiction over the orders of the full Commission dealing with Workmen's Compensation matters.
Relator petitioned for rehearing in the District Court and filed with this Court its suggestion for writ of prohibition directed to the District Court. The District Court denied rehearing.
This Court entered its rule nisi in prohibition. The returns and briefs have been filed and argument heard. We think it implicit in our order of April 4, 1967, denying the suggestion for writ of prohibition to the Circuit Court, that, on the law and facts involved, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the cause and, in that respect, the law of the case was established.
It is our view the Circuit Court, as to the subject matter of the suit, did no more than apply Florida Statutes § 440.44 (2), F.S.A. and, in consequence, the District Court was the proper forum on appeal. The District Court's decision left relator's relief, if any, by way of review here. The writ of prohibition is denied on procedural grounds without adjudicating the merits of the basic question regarding the validity of the organization of the current Florida Industrial Commission. That will have to await presentation in an orderly fashion.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON ADKINS and CALDWELL (Retired), JJ., concur.
ERVIN, C. J., dissents with opinion.