STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL J. W. GILLESPIE, ET AL., RELATORS,
v.
MARION F. MOBLEY, AND OTHER OFFICIALS OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, 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 held that the allegations in the alternative writ were legally sufficient, requiring the respondents to answer. The court denied the motion to quash the writ, allowing respondents time to respond and potentially raise issues about trial venue.
Yes, the allegations of the alternative writ are sufficient in law to require the respondents to answer.
“In this case the Court holds that the allegations of the alternative writ are sufficient in law to require the respondents to answer the same.”
Establishes the court's primary holding regarding the sufficiency of the writ.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelators filed an alternative writ, and respondents filed a motion to quash it. The respondents argued that any factual issues should be tried in a ci…
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.
In this case the Court holds that the allegations of the alternative writ are sufficient in law to require the re*281spondents to answer the same. Therefore the motion to' quash the alternative writ will be denied, with leave to answer same within fifteen days.
If issues of fact are found to have been properly raised by such answer, that will require the taking of testimony and proof with respect thereto, respondents will be permitted to assert objections suggested by their motion to quash, which is to the effect that such issues of fact can and should be more conveniently and economically tried in the Circuit Court, and that therefore the proceeding here should be dismissed without prejudice to the right to proceed in the Circuit Court.
Motion to quash alternative writ denied with leave to make further return within fifteen days.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.