State, Department of Citrus v. Griffin

Supreme Court of Florida

State, Department of Citrus v. Griffin

266 So. 2d 36, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3445

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 1972

DocketNo. 42077

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 So. 2d 36 (State, Department of Citrus v. Griffin) 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

State, Department of Citrus v. Griffin, 266 So. 2d 36, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3445 (Fla. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jurisdiction in this cause was tentatively accepted on two grounds: first, that the decision of the District Court below, a per curiam affirmance reported at 257 So.2d 116 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1972), conflicted with City of Miami Beach v. Schauer, 104 So.2d 129 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1958); second, that the decision below was one affecting a class of constitutional or state officers. Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F. S.A.

Having heard oral arguments, and having examined the briefs and record relating to the cause, we now find that the tentative grant of jurisdiction was granted in error. The case is a continuation on remand of State, Department of Citrus v. Griffin, 239 So.2d 577 (Fla.1970). Plaintiffs, C. V. Griffin, Sr. and C. V. Griffin Groves Co., seek to have subpoenas duces tecum directed against defendants, members of the Florida Citrus Commission and members of the School Lunch Advisory Committee, requiring the production at trial of all personal income tax returns relating to a certain period of time. The trial court has sustained the subpoenas in part, on the ground that they relate to issues [37]*37relevant to the cause; however, the court has announced that it is withholding any ruling on admissibility until trial. An interlocutory appeal from this ruling resulted in an affirmance by the District Court without opinion.

It is our judgment that the determination of any jurisdictional avenue to this Court must await proper resolution of the issue of admissibility at trial, lest such determination be based upon unfounded speculation. We find the case as currently postured easily distinguishable from Schauer, and only vaguely, if at all, related to the powers, duties and responsibilities of any class of constitutional or state officers in a manner which would “affect” such a class.

The writ heretofore issued in error is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J„ and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jurisdiction in this cause was tentatively accepted on two grounds: first, that the decision of the District Court below, a per curiam affirmance reported at 257 So.2d 116 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1972), conflicted with City of Miami Beach v. Schauer, 104 So.2d 129 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1958); second, that the decision below was one affecting a class of constitutional or state officers. Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F. S.A.

Having heard oral arguments, and having examined the briefs and record relating to the cause, we now find that the tentative grant of jurisdiction was granted in error. The case is a continuation on remand of State, Department of Citrus v. Griffin, 239 So.2d 577 (Fla.1970). Plaintiffs, C. V. Griffin, Sr. and C. V. Griffin Groves Co., seek to have subpoenas duces tecum directed against defendants, members of the Florida Citrus Commission and members of the School Lunch Advisory Committee, requiring the production at trial of all personal income tax returns relating to a certain period of time. The trial court has sustained the subpoenas in part, on the ground that they relate to issues [37]*37relevant to the cause; however, the court has announced that it is withholding any ruling on admissibility until trial. An interlocutory appeal from this ruling resulted in an affirmance by the District Court without opinion.

It is our judgment that the determination of any jurisdictional avenue to this Court must await proper resolution of the issue of admissibility at trial, lest such determination be based upon unfounded speculation. We find the case as currently postured easily distinguishable from Schauer, and only vaguely, if at all, related to the powers, duties and responsibilities of any class of constitutional or state officers in a manner which would “affect” such a class.

The writ heretofore issued in error is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J„ and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 So. 2d 36, 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-citrus-v-griffin-fla-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack