Opinion ID: 1138281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: History of Common-Law Writ of Certiorari in Florida

Text: Legal historians have told us that the English common-law writ of certiorari was an original writ issuing out of chancery or the King's Bench, directing that an inferior tribunal return the record of a pending cause so that the higher court could review the proceedings. George E. Harris, A Treatise on the Law of Certiorari § 1 (1893). The use of the writ was continued in the American courts, both state and federal. A more recent treatise defines certiorari as a discretionary writ issued by an appellate court to a lower court in cases where an appeal or writ of error was unavailable, directing that the record of the lower court be provided for review to determine whether the lower court has exceeded its jurisdiction or not proceeded according to law. 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 456 (1978). [1] This Court [2] first recognized its common-law certiorari jurisdiction in Halliday v. Jacksonville & Alligator Plank Road Co., 6 Fla. 304 (1855), and defined its use in rather broad and general terms: [A] writ of certiorari will lie from this court to any of the inferior jurisdictions, whenever an appropriate case may be presented, or it shall become necessary for the attainment of justice. Id. at 305. In 1882, in an opinion which retains its currency and whose clarity remains a hallmark, we defined the writ in more precise terms: The question which this certiorari brings here is .. . whether the Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in hearing the case at all, or adopted any method unknown to the law or essentially irregular in his proceeding under the statute. A decision made according to the form of law and the rules prescribed for rendering it, although it may be erroneous in its conclusion as to what the law is as applied to facts, is not an illegal or irregular act or proceeding remediable by certiorari. Basnet v. City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523, 526-27 (1882); see also Edgerton v. Mayor of Green Cove Springs, 18 Fla. 528 (1882). In Basnet and its progeny we refined the nature and scope of certiorari. We described certiorari as appellate in character in the sense that it involves a limited review of the proceedings of an inferior jurisdiction. Basnet, 18 Fla. at 527. It is original in the sense that the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding which it brings before the court are not here reinvestigated, tried and determined upon the merits generally as upon appeal at law or writ of error. Id. This explanation, stated another way, importantly emphasizes that certiorari should not be used to grant a second appeal. [3] Id.; Kennington v. Gillman, 284 So.2d 405, 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). [4] In Jacksonville, T. & K.W. Railway Co. v. Boy, 34 Fla. 389, 393, 16 So. 290, 291 (1894), we reviewed a circuit court decision affirming a county court judgment, and, while repeating certain language from Basnet, we also stated that we have the power to review and quash, on common-law certiorari, the proceedings of an inferior tribunal when it proceeds without jurisdiction or when its procedure is illegal, unknown to the law, or essentially irregular. Id. at 392, 16 So. 290. Further, in examining the scope of review in other states, we endorsed the practice in Illinois where the superior court determines whether the inferior court had jurisdiction, or had exceeded its jurisdiction, or had failed to proceed according to the essential requirements of the law. Id. at 393, 16 So. 290 (emphasis added). In conclusion, we found that [t]he judgment of affirmance in the record before the Circuit Court was such an essential irregularity and departure from prescribed rules of procedure in such cases as to require that it be quashed, and a judgment will therefore be entered accordingly. Id. at 396, 16 So. 290. In Mernaugh v. City of Orlando, 41 Fla. 433, 27 So. 34 (1899), this Court explicitly incorporated the essential requirements of law language into our standard: The rule established here is that the Supreme Court has power to review and quash, on the common-law writ of certiorari, the proceedings of inferior tribunals when they proceed in a cause without jurisdiction, or when their procedure is essentially irregular and not according to the essential requirements of law, and no appeal or direct method of reviewing the proceeding exists. Id. at 442, 27 So. 34 (emphasis added).