writ procedure to circumvent established appellate rules.” J.C., 847 So.2d at 492. Moreover, to allow the use of prohibition in the instant case would, in my view, completely vitiate the limitations placed upon use of the writ and convert it from an extraordinary writ to a commonly used method to appeal any erroneous order. ORFINGER, J., dissenting. Because I believe that allowing further consideration of Ambroise’s untimely petition for an administrative hearing would be in excess of the Commission’s jurisdiction, I believe we should consider this matter as a petition for writ of prohibition and preclude the Commission from taking any further action on Ambroise’s petition. See, e.g. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Career Serv. Comm’n, 448 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (<HOLDING>). As a result, I respectfully dissent. Himrod
holding prohibition lies to prevent a lower tribunal from acting in excess of its jurisdiction but not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction recognizing the supreme courts longstanding jurisdiction over writs of prohibition and mandamus to courts of inferior jurisdiction holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act holding that the superior court may not issue writs of prohibition to review an order denying recusal before final judgment holding that district courts have power to issue writs of prohibition to administrative agencies to prevent them from exceeding their jurisdiction