STATE EX REL. SIDNEY J. CATTS, RELATOR,
v.
H. CLAY CRAWFORD, SECRETARY OF STATE, THOMAS F. WEST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND J. C. LUNING, STATE TREASURER, CONSTITUTING THE STATE CANVASSING BOARD OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION OF 1916, RESPONDENTS
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 denied a relator's application to amend a petition for a writ of mandamus, finding the amended petition lacked sufficient grounds to justify the requested relief.
The court held that the amended petition did not allege facts demonstrating that the writ would secure any remedial good for the relator or protect a right of which he had been deprived. Additionally, the prayer for relief was flawed by allowing the respondents discretion where none existed.
“Because the amended petition does not allege any facts to show that said alternative writ will result in the securing of any remedial good to the relator, or will secure him in any right of which he has been deprived.”
Reasoning for denying the application to amend the petition.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator sought to amend a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the State Canvassing Board to recanvass election returns. The court considered…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Alternative Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
—This cause coming on to be heard upon an application to amend the prayer of the petition for alternative writ of mandamus, upon due consideration the application must be denied on the following grounds:
1st. Because the amended petition does not allege any facts to show that said alternative writ will result in the securing of any remedial good to the relator, or will secure him in any right of which he has been deprived.
2nd. Because the prayer of said amended petition seeks an alternative writ commanding the respondents positively to recanvass a certain named return from one county, viz., Alachua, and leaving it to their option and discretion to recanvass or not at their discretion the amended and corrected returns from that and other counties that may be before them, as to which matters said Board has no discretion.
The application is hereby denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Crawford, 95 Fla. 438 (Fla. 1928)…lding of this Court, in State ex rel. Kehoe v. McRae, 49 Fla. 389, 38 So. 605, citing State ex rel. Vereen v. Commissioners, 27 Fla. 438, 8 So. 749; 13 Encyc. Pldg. & Prac. 493. See also Pennock v. State, 61 Fla. 383, 54 So. 1004; State v. Crawford, 72 Fla. 254, 73 So. 588; State v. Crawford, 90 Fla. 264, 105 So. 446; 38 C. J. 552-3. It thus appears that we must consider the question whether the issuance of the peremptory writ would be unavailing, nugatory and without beneficial results to the relator, an…
-
State v. Davis, 125 Fla. 476 (Fla. 1936)…right entitled to be enjoyed by him if Chapter 17085, Acts 1935, was validly passed, the writ if awarded would be fruitless and should be denied on the authority of Davis v. Crawford, 95 Fla. 438, 116 Sou. Rep. 41; State, ex rel. Catts, v. Crawford, 72 Fla. 254, 73 Sou. Rep. 588. Amended mandamus denied. Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur. Ellis, P. J., and Brown, J., dissent.…