Application, University of Jacksonville

178 So. 149, 134 Fla. 879
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 8, 1938
StatusPublished

This text of 178 So. 149 (Application, University of Jacksonville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Application, University of Jacksonville, 178 So. 149, 134 Fla. 879 (Fla. 1938).

Opinion

The University of Jacksonville filed its petition *Page 880 in this Court praying for an order approving its course of study in law. A rule nisi was issued directed to the State Board of Law Examiners and the State Bar Association commanding them to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

The State Board of Law Examiners and the State Bar Association appeared, moved to quash the rule nisi and on the issue thus made, the cause was heard March 26, 1937, in connection with the petition of the State Bar Association and others to approve and adopt rules proposed by them for the regulation of the bar.

The petitioner apparently relied on Section 4181, Compiled General Laws of 1927 for the relief sought. The petition must be and is hereby denied because, (1) this Court is not authorized to approve the course of study of any law school and, (2) while we are authorized under Section 4180, Compiled General Laws of 1927, to prescribe courses of study to be pursued by applicants for admission to the bar the course so prescribed is the identical one that law schools are required by Section 4181, Compiled General Laws, to maintain. Such a course has been prescribed as the law directs and is available to petitioner on requisition to the Clerk of this Court.

If petitioner desires to secure for its graduates like privileges as are granted to graduates of law schools under Section 4181, supra, it is necessary that it make showing to the State Board of Law Examiners that it has maintained the course of study prescribed by this Court, that it offers library facilities to its students equivalent to those offered by law schools complying with Section 4181, supra, that it has a faculty of equivalent qualification to the faculty of said law schools and that its equipment and facilities for preparation for the bar are in other respects equal to that offered by "A" grade law schools in this country. *Page 881

For a full discussion of our views on this and cognate questions see Ex parte Florida State Bar Association, et al., opinion filed this date.

It is so ordered.

ELLIS, C.J., and WHITFIELD and BROWN, J.J., concur.

CHAPMAN, J., disqualified.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, JANUARY TERM, A.D. 1939.
AMENDED RULE 25 — APPLICATION FOR REHEARING.
It is considered and ordered by the Court that Rule 25 of the Rules governing Practice in the Supreme Court of Florida be and the same is amended so as to read as follows:

RULE 25. Rehearings must be applied for by petition in writing within fifteen days after the filing of the judgment, decree or order of the court, unless further time is allowed by the court. The petition shall not assume any new ground or position not taken in the original argument or briefs upon which the cause was submitted, and must set forth concisely the omissions, causes or grounds on which it is based, and must point out specifically in what respect the original opinion and decision is deemed by the petitioner to be erroneous in some material matter of law or fact, setting forth concisely the reasons why the matters specified are supposed to be erroneous.

A copy of the petition shall be served upon the opposite party or counsel at or before the time of its submission to the Court. It shall not be considered a part of the record in the cause unless so ordered or rehearing granted. No argument shall be allowed on the petition. When a petition for rehearing is denied, the Clerk shall forthwith issue *Page 882 and transmit the mandate to the court below. The petitioner shall not be entitled to file any additional petition.

It is further ordered that the above amended Rule shall become effective on and after March 15th, A.D. 1939.

Adopted and promulgated this 8th day of February, A.D. 1939.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, JANUARY TERM, A.D. 1939.
From and after February 15, 1939, Rule 27 of this Court shall read as follows:

All applications for writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and other writs necessary to the complete exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court as authorized by Section 5, Article V, of the Constitution shall be made as herein provided and may be heard any Tuesday at 9:30 A.M. provided five days notice of such application shall have been given to the adverse party or his counsel and proof thereof filed with the Clerk of this Court. Applications raising questions of fact which will require the taking of testimony to determine will not be entertained. If presented in person, no further oral argument on them will be permitted. Copy of every brief required under this rule shall be furnished the adverse party.

Certiorari.
Application for writ of certiorari shall be by petition which shall be accompanied by a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings the petitioner seeks to have reviewed or so much thereof as is essential. Unless shown by opposing counsel to be necessary, no other record shall be required. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the cause and the reasons relied on for granting the writ. *Page 883 It shall also be accompanied by a supporting brief prepared in compliance with the rules of this Court. Copy of the petition, transcript, and brief shall be furnished Respondent or his counsel at the time notice of application therefor is filed with the Clerk of this Court. The Respondent may file his brief in opposition to the writ within ten days after he is furnished with copy of petitioner's brief. Unless further proceedings are ordered by the Court, the cause shall then be finally disposed of without oral argument.

Prohibition.
Application for writ of prohibition shall be by suggestion stating the nature of the proceeding sought to be prohibited. The contents of the suggestion shall be substantially as required by statute, now Section 5450, Compiled General Laws of 1927. If the suggestion makes a prima facie case, the Court will issue a rule directed to the inferior court, and any other party respondent joined therewith, commanding it to show cause on a return day certain why the writ as prayed for should not be granted. On the return day so fixed or sooner if desired, the respondent shall file such appropriate pleadings as he may deem proper, including his brief in support thereof. The Relator shall be given not exceeding ten days to file his brief at which time the cause shall be ready for final disposition without oral argument.

Mandamus.
Proceedings in mandamus shall be instituted by petition setting up as briefly as may be the basis for the relief prayed. If the petition makes a prima facie case, the Court will issue the alternative writ or it may issue a rule to show cause on a return day certain why an alternative writ should not be granted. On the return day, Respondent shall plead to the writ as he may deem proper, supporting said plea or pleas with a brief. Relator shall be allowed not exceeding *Page 884 ten days to file his reply brief at the conclusion of which the cause shall be finally adjudicated unless further proceedings may be ordered by the Court.

Original petitions in mandamus will not be entertained by this Court unless a State officer, State board, State functionary, or some other agency authorized to represent the public generally, is named as Respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 So. 149, 134 Fla. 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/application-university-of-jacksonville-fla-1938.