distinguishing “quasi- judicial” power as that “involving official judgment . . . exercised by administrative officers with appropriate statutory authority and limitations in order to effectuate duly authorized [governmental] administrative functions” (all but first emphasis supplied)
How later courts described this case
- distinguishing “quasi- judicial” power as that “involving official judgment . . . exercised by administrative officers with appropriate statutory authority and limitations in order to effectuate duly authorized [governmental] administrative functions” (all but first emphasis supplied)
- appellate review of workmen’s compensation cases has since been changed in Florida by constitutional amendment
- recognizing the discretionary nature of certiorari review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Brown, J.
(concurring specially).' — Even if it should be conceded that Section 5 of Article V defines and also limits the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the statutory provision allowing appeals to this Court from the judgments of the Circuit Court reviewing awards made by the Florida Industrial Commission could be sustained as pointed out by Mr. Justice Whitfield upon the very reasonable theory that no “case” within the meaning of the Constitution came into existence until the award reached the circuit court for review. There, as a “case,” it originated in the circuit court. The meaning of this word, as used in the Constitution, is set for the First National Bank v. Bebinger, cited in the foregoing opinion.