Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka

20 Citing cases

  1. Boyer v. City of Orlando

    232 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1970)   Cited 10 times

    Because it is reviewable on direct appeal to this Court in accordance with Article V, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution and City of Fort Lauderdale case, supra, such a question could normally qualify for certification to this Court. Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963). 222 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1969).

  2. Wallace v. Cochran

    349 So. 2d 767 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

    The law is clear that a question certified by a trial court under Fla.App. Rule 4.6(a) must be addressed to the appellate court which would have jurisdiction to review the case on direct appeal if the trial court decided the question. Jaworski v. City of Opa Locka, 149 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1963). When a trial court construes a controlling provision of the state or federal constitution, the Supreme Court of Florida is invested with exclusive jurisdiction to review the case on direct appeal under Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.City of Orlando v. Cameron, 264 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1972); Robinson v. State, 132 So.2d 3, 5 (Fla. 1961).

  3. State v. Basiliere

    353 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1978)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that deceased victim's discovery deposition was not admissible as evidence in defendant's trial because defendant was not present during the examination

    We have jurisdiction to answer the certified questions. Florida Appellate Rule 4.6, Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963), Boyer v. City of Orlando, 232 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1970). Ronald Basiliere was charged with aggravated battery upon Edward Daly. Defendant's attorney filed a notice to take the deposition of Daly pursuant to Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.220(d).

  4. In Interest of C.F

    345 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1977)   Cited 1 times

    We have jurisdiction to answer the certified question. Florida Appellate Rules, Rule 4.6, 32 F.S.A., Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963); Boyer v. City of Orlando, 232 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1970). The circuit judge appointed the public defender for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County to represent C.F., a juvenile, in proceedings based on a petition entitled "First Ungovernable Petition."

  5. Thayer v. State

    335 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1976)   Cited 424 times
    Conveying intent pursuant to the principle of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another”

    Pursuant to Rule 4.6 of the Florida Appellate Rules we are responding to questions certified to this Court by the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County. See Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963). The questions are:

  6. Dees v. State

    295 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1974)   Cited 8 times

    At petitioner's habeas corpus hearing, the trial court found that the question presented herein was determinative of this cause and was without controlling precedent in this state, whereupon it withheld its decision certifying the issue to this Court. We have jurisdiction to answer the certified question pursuant to Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., 1962 Revision. Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963); Boyer v. City of Orlando, 232 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1970). The question presented by the trial in its Certificate of Great Public Interest is as follows:

  7. State v. Aiuppa

    298 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1974)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another state's statute, "it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the `model' in determining the proper construction. . . ."

    A question or proposition certified directly to this Court by a county court must be one which, if decided by the county court, would be reviewable on direct appeal from that court to this Court. Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963). If this cause proceeded to final judgment the trial court would, of necessity, pass upon the constitutional validity of a state statute.

  8. Davis v. Johnson

    293 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    We have jurisdiction to answer the questions. Florida Appellate Rules, Rule 4.6, 32 F.S.A., Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963); Boyer v. City of Orlando, 232 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1970), P.C. Lissenden Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 116 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1959). The identical questions as have been certified here by the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County have been answered in McKibben et al. v. Mallory et al., 293 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1974), consolidated for purposes of oral argument with the instant cause, and our decision in that case is therefore dispositive of this cause.

  9. McKibben v. Mallory

    293 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1974)   Cited 73 times

    We have jurisdiction to answer the certified questions. Florida Appellate Rules, Rule 4.6, 32 F.S.A., Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963), Boyer v. City of Orlando, 232 So.2d 169 (Fla. 1970), P.C. Lissenden Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 116 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1959). The pertinent facts involved in the instant case as were stated in the Certificate of Questions by the trial court are as follows. Plaintiffs, the minor son and daughter of the decedent, filed an action seeking to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of Marlin A. McKibben, Jr. on June 6, 1972.

  10. Bernhardt v. State

    288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)   Cited 177 times
    Concluding that the defendant received "due process . . .; the evidence was sufficient to justify revocation; and the trial court did not abuse [its] discretion in revoking probation."

    Rules of practice and procedure adopted by this Court supercede any legislative enactment governing practice and procedure to extent that statute and rule may be inconsistent. Jaworski v. The City of Opa-Locka, Florida, 149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963); In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 272 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1973); In re Clarification of Florida Rules of Practice and Procedure (Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 2(a)), 281 So.2d 204 (Fla. 1973). Insofar as Section 949.10 purports to deprive the court of its discretion in determining whether bail should be granted, this portion of the statute is superceded by Rule 3.