Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Pearson v. Trammell

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 16, 1936PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The facts of this controversy have been stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Brown. We agree with his conclusion, but not with that feature of the opinion which holds the remedy by writ of prohibition improper in a case of this kind. Too many decisions of this Court, notably Speight v. Horne, 101 Fla. 101, 133 Sou. Rep. 274 (9th headnote) establish the rule to the contrary. Furthermore, as pointed out in the last cited case, writ of error would not be an adequate remedy, because it would require the defendants, in seeking a writ or error, to enter a general appearance in the cause, whereas…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Speight v. HorneSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
  2. State ex rel. Garrett v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1933
  3. Bishop v. ChillingworthSupreme Court of Florida · 1934

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Christian v. RuddDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  2. Graives v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API