CITY OF DELAND, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; E. W. BROWN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DELAND; WALTER O. LAHRMAN, CLARKE HARPER, GRAHAM PARSONS AND C. L. HEATH, CITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF DELAND; GRANT BLY, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK OF THE CITY OF DELAND, AND F. M. FORD, TAX COLLECTOR OF THE CITY OF DELAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. E. FEARINGTON AND MAYME W. FEARINGTON, JOINED BY J. E. FEARINGTON, HER HUBSAND; GEORGE E. LEDERER AND MAIDIE C. LEDERER, HIS WIFE, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, GEORGE E. LEDERER; A. V. S. SMITH; H. W. MERCER; GEORGE A. BAKER; CANDACE R. STRAWN; JOHN H. CRANOR; C. E. DUNN, AND HETTIE E. MCBRIDE, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, J. R. MCBRIDE, APPELLEES
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 affirmed a lower court's injunction restraining a referendum election, despite noting that the election time had passed. The court acknowledged that while courts generally do not restrain elections, exceptions exist for violations of law or potential substantial injury.
Yes, a court of equity can restrain an election if it is held in violation of law, contrary to legal requirements, or would result in substantial injury, provided there is no other legal remedy.
“A court of equity will not as a general rule restrain the holding of an election but there are some well known exceptions to this rule.”
Establishes the general rule and the existence of exceptions regarding court intervention in elections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees sought to restrain a referendum election authorized by Chapter 15177, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931. The lower court granted the injunction,…
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 Repeal Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a decree restraining the holding of referendum election authorized by Chapter 15177 Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931. It is contended by Appellees that a referendum election may be restrained, that Chapter 15177, Acts of 1931 was not legally enacted, that the election provided for thereunder was not legally called, that Chapter 15177 Acts of 1931 was repealed by Chapter 15673 Acts of 1931, that Chapter 15177 Acts of 1931 was a flagrant violation of property rights, and that this case is ruled by State s. City of Stuart 97 Fla. 69, 120 So. 335.
A court of equity will not as a general rule restrain the holding of an election but there are some well known exceptions to this rule. An election held in violation of law or contrary to well established legal requirements or when it would result in substantial injury to any suitor or the public generally may on proper showing be enjoined where there is no other legal remedy.
State v. City of Stuart has no application whatever to this case. Neither is there any basis for the contention that. Chapter 15177 Acts of 1931 was repealed by Chapter 15673, Acts of 1931. The Chancellor refused to adjudicate the validity of Chapter 15177 but restrained the holding of the election on the theory that the law. providing for its holding was not complied with. There is ample showing in the record to restrain the election but a discussion of the grounds on which it should have been restrained would serve *500no useful purpose as the time in which it was required to be held has long since passed.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Fla. League OF Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1992)…when property is assessed “at less than its just value.” We also must acknowledge that there is a strong public policy against courts interfering in the democratic processes of elections. See Askew, 421 So. 2d at 154; City of DeLand v. Fearington, 108 Fla. 498, 146 So. 573 (1933). In the present case, we are presented with essentially only two options: apply the plain language of the constitutional repealer, or go behind that language to embroil this Court in a legal controversy where none need exist, the…
-
Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316 (Fla. 1935)…y v. Stringfellow, 73 Fla. 700, 74 Sou. Rep. 866; Goodno v. South Florida Farms Co., 95 Fla. 90, 116 Sou. Rep. 23; Luria v. Bank of Coral Gables, 106 Fla. 175, 142 Sou. Rep. 901, 143 Sou. Rep. 598; Scott v. National City Bank of Tampa, 107 Fla. 818, 146 Sou. Rep. 573; Preacher & Co. v. Sarasota Bay Hotel Co., 112 Fla. 432, 150 Sou. Rep. 590. The presumption on appeal is that the order granting a new trial was properly made. See: Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wade, 49 Fla. 179, 36 Sou. Rep. 49; Dunnellon Phosphate C…
-
Fletcher Scott v. The Nat'l City Bank of Tampa (Fla. 1931)
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. City of Stuart, 97 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1929)
- Ferdon v. Hendry Lumber Co., 97 Fla. 283 (Fla. 1929)