WALTER VANDORN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. GEORGE H. CLARKE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's judgment in a quo warranto proceeding because the defendant was improperly denied a jury trial on factual issues. The court held that a defendant in such a case has a right to have factual disputes settled by a jury.
Yes, the lower court erred by refusing the appellant's demand for a jury trial. The defendant in a quo warranto proceeding has the right to have factual issues settled by a jury.
“After issues of fact were tendered on the pleadings, defendant below, appellant here, demanded a trial of them by jury, and it was refused.”
Describes the key procedural event that led to the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn information in the nature of quo warranto was filed to test the appellant's right to hold the office of treasurer of the town of Daytona. After iss…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mabry, J.:
This was an information in the nature of a quo warranto filed in the Circuit Court on the relation of appellee upon the refusal of the Attorney-G-eneral to institute such proceeding for the purpose of testing the right of appellant to hold the office of treasurer of the town of Daytona in this State.
The pleadings and issues in this case are so similar to those in the case of Buckman vs. State ex rel., decided at this term, that a recital of them here becomes unnecessary. The ground upon which Buckman’s case was disposed of will control this case. After issues of fact were tendered on the pleadings, defendant below, appellant here, demanded a trial of them by jury, and it was refused. This was error. The defendant had the right to have such issues settled by the jury, and for this reason the judgment must be reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. S. H. Kress & Co., 115 Fla. 189 (Fla. 1934)…its are presented by pleas or answers in which a high degree of certainty is required and the right of trial by jury on issues purely of fact is guaranteed by the Constitution. See Buckham v. State, 34 Fla. 48, 15 South. Rep. 697; Van Dorn v. State, 34 Fla. 62, 15 South. Rep. 701; State, ex rel. Weeks v. Day, 14 Fla. 9; State, ex rel. Smith v. Anderson, 26 Fla. 240, 8 South. Rep. 1. The rule authorizing the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto by the Attorney General in his official cap…
-
The State v. City of Avon Park, 117 Fla. 565 (Fla. 1934)…Court has held that, in quo warranto proceedings, in the circuit court, the right to a trial by jury on issues of fact exists, and is guaranteed by the third section of our Bill of Rights. Buckman v. State, 34 Fla. 48, 15 So. 697; Van Dorn v. State, 34 Fla. 62, 15 So. 701. The question of a right to a jury trial in quo warranto proceedings instituted in this Court was not involved in those cases. See 17 Encyc. Pldg. & Prac. 479, and 51 C. J. 359, and note in 5 Anno. Cases, p. 641, from which it appears [*…
-
State v. Ward Klingensmith, 126 Fla. 124 (Fla. 1936)…urely of fact, arising in proceedings by quo warranto, is guaranteed by the third section of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Buckman v. State, ex rel. Spencer, 34 Fla. 48, 15 Sou. Rep. 697, 24 L. R. A. 806; Van Dorn v. State, ex rel. Clarke, 34 Fla. 62, 15 Sou. Rep. 701; State, ex rel. Attorney General, v City of Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641, 149 Sou. Rep. 409; State, ex rel. Landis, v. S. H. Kress & Co., 115 Fla. 189, 155 Sou. Rep. 823. As to the right of trial by jury in such cases, when issues of f…