ROBERT C. GOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
JANE EHRLICH, WILLIAM FAHEE, ET AL., APPELLEES
ROBERT C. GOFF, APPELLANT,
JANE EHRLICH, WILLIAM FAHEE, ET AL., APPELLEES
776 So. 2d 1011
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2001)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
HARRIS, J.
Goff was the successful candidate for the Seminole County School Board who, after the election, sued his opponent for allegedly violating the provisions of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, by not reporting a sup porter’s payment of a pre-election and post-election legal challenge to Goffs qualifying residency as a contribution to the campaign. Because we find that Chapter 106 does not confer a private right of action,1 we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and PLEUS, J., concur. . See Fischer v. Metcalf, 543 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schurr v. Sanchez-Gronlier, 937 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…-certify the offender and remove Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier’s name from the ballot be granted? In answering this question, the Court recognizes binding precedent holding that § 106.021 does not provide for a private right of action. Goff v. Ehrlich, 776 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). As properly argued by Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier, §§ 106.18 and 106.19 detail the removal of a candidate for violations of Chapter 106, with enforcement within the purview of the Florida Elections Commission. As a result, the re…
-
Torrens v. Shaw, 257 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Torres v. Shaw (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…do not provide private rights of action. See, e.g., Schurr v. Sanchez-Gronlier, 937 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding no private right of action to challenge whether a check had been “properly executed” under § 105.031(5)(a)); Goff v. Ehrlich, 776 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (finding no private right of action under chapter 106); see also Torrens v. Shaw, 257 So. 3d 168, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (approving Schurr and Goff and concluding that “a private citizen’s allegation of a violation of chapter 10…
Authorities Cited
- Siegel v. Siegel, 543 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)