JOHN W. DUBOSE, COUNTY JUDGE IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, AND CHARLES T. BRANHAM, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
HERMAN G. MEISTER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
This case involves a dispute over the cancellation of a real estate broker's license. The appellate court dismissed the writ of error because the license had already expired, rendering the appeal moot and any decision without practical effect.
No, the appellate court should not review the order because the license has expired, making the question moot and any decision on the appeal without practical effect.
“A decision by this Court of the questions involved could be of no practical effect.”
Establishes the core reason for dismissal due to mootness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA complaint was filed to cancel Herman G. Meister's real estate broker license. The County Judge assumed jurisdiction, but a writ of prohibition was s…
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 Writ Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case complaint was-filed before Hon. John W. DuBose, as County Judge of Duval County, against Herman G. Meister praying for an order that a license issued to the said Meister on the 21st day of October, 1925, as a real estate broker be cancelled upon grounds set forth in the complaint. The County Judge assumed jurisdiction of the matter and thereupon a suggestion praying a writ of prohibition was filed in the circuit court of Duval County, Florida, seeking to prohibit John W. DuBose as County Judge from exercising jurisdiction to try the complaint above referred to. On the 24th day of July, 1926, an order for writ of prohibition was made and entered by the Circuit Judge. From this order writ of error was sued out.
On November 9th, 1926, the defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error upon the ground that the question involved in the appeal is a moot question and no practical result could be accomplished by reviewing the questions therein involved.
A decision by this Court of the questions involved could be of no practical effect. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the license which was sought to be revoked expired on the 30th day of September, 1926. If this Court, following the law as construed and enunciated in the opinion in the case of Harry E. Prettyman, Inc., v. Fla. Real Estate Commission, ex rel. _ Fla. _; 109 Sou. 442; should reverse the order of prohibition it could avail nothing, because the license which is sought to be revoked by order of the County Judge no longer exists and therefore, no effective order could be made by the County Judge revoking the same.
The writ of error will be dismissed where no practical result could be attained by reviewing the questions therein contained. (Winburn v. Huey, 44 Fla. 739; 33 Sou. 248; St. v. Taylor, 77 Fla. 607; 82 Sou. 604).
The writ of error is now dismissed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)…expired. The questions raised on appeal, therefore, have become merely academic. [*555] An appeal should be dismissed where no practical result could be attained by reviewing the questions therein contained. DuBose, County Judge, et al., v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995, 110 So. 546. Under such circumstances the appeal may be dismissed of the court’s own motion. Barrs v. Peacock, et ah, 65 Fla. 12, 61 So. 118. Appeal dismissed at cost of appellant. It is so ordered. BUFORD, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ„…
-
Greene v. State, 238 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1970)…the judgments of conviction so that the relief requested in the form of bail pending appeal can no longer be made available and effective, it seems to me the better practice would dictate a dismissal of this case. See DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995, 110 So. 546 (1943); McCormick v. Bond, 75 Fla. 819, 78 So. 681 (1918); Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12, 61 So. 118 (1913). Although this Court has in the past indicated it will retain jurisdiction to determine mooted issues where questions presented are of genera…
-
Bliven v. Turville, 100 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…so. It is, therefore, the order of the court that the appeal in this case be dismissed as the subject matter is now moot. See DeHoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258; McCormick v. Bond, 75 Fla. 819, 78 So. 681; DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995, 110 So. 546. ALLEN, Acting Chief Judge, and TFIORNAL and BARKER, Associate Judges, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harry E. Prettyman, Inc. v. The Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 92 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1926)
- Winborne v. Hughey, 44 Fla. 739 (Fla. 1902)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Edward A. Haley v. Taylor, 77 Fla. 607 (Fla. 1919)