Wiggins & Johnson v. Williams
Citations
- 36 Fla. 637
Syllabus
<p>1. Where several interlocutory orders are made in a case, and only certain ones specified are appealed from, the appellate court will be confined to the orders mentioned in the appeal.</p> <p>2. Constitutional provisions, similar to that contained in the third section of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, were designed to preserve and guarantee the right of trial by jury in proceedings according to the course of the common law as known and practiced at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.</p> <p>3. The guaranty of the right of trial by jury was intended to provide for the future as well as the past, and to secure the right of such trial in all cases whether then or thereafter arising which would properly fall within those classes of rights to-which by the course of the common law the trial by jury was. secured.</p> <p>4. The Legislature may create new rights unknown to the common law procedure of trial by jury, and may organize new tribunals without commpn law powers to adjudicate such rights-without a jury, but a mere change in the form of an action will not authorize the submission of common law rights, in the trial of which according to the course of the common law a jury was employed, to a court m which no provision is made to secure a jury trial.</p> <p>5. Courts of chancery are not strictly courts according to the course-of the common law, and the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury has no reference to such courts iu their recognized sphere of equity jurisdiction, nor does such guaranty extend to all cases at law, as there are proceedings in many inferior courts,. and many summary proceedings in nisiprius court in which a jury was never employed.</p> <p>8. Prior to the enactment of Chapter 3834, act of 1889, the court of chancery in this State had no jurisdiction to enjoin a mere trespass upon land and the boxing and scraping the trees thereon for the purpose of making turpentine, or the removal of turpentine therefrom, where no other ele
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the use of a black box restraint did not violate the Eighth Amendment because, in part, “a court should give deference to prophylactic or preventative security measures just as it does in cases with rioting inmates.”
- observing that prisoners who are taken to outside medical providers can pose a security threat, and courts should give deference to preventative measures meant to address this risk
- allowing medical professionals to “default to the security needs of the prison unless the medical professional determines that an exemption is required for medical reasons”
- discouraging moving party from presenting facts with a \loose allegiance\ to the summary judgment standard
- allowing medical professionals to “default to the security needs of the prison unless the medical professional determines that an exemption is required for medical reasons”
- allowing medical professionals to “default to the security needs of the prison unless the medical professional determines that an exemption is required for medical 13 reasons”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Mabry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.