F. S. BLIVEN AND WILLIAM BOYD, APPELLANTS,
v.
HAROLD TURVILLE ET AL., 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.
Bliven challenged an election for Mayor of Clermont where disputed ballots were counted for O. H. Keene, resulting in Keene's election over Boyd. The appeal was dismissed as moot because the one-year mayoral term had expired before the court could rule on the validity of the election.
The appeal was dismissed as moot because the mayoral term had expired and no relief could be afforded even if the appellants prevailed on the merits.
“It being apparent to the Court that no relief could be afforded the appellant if this Court should reverse the lower court on a question of law, it would be useless to do so.”
Establishes the court's rationale for dismissing the appeal as moot due to the expiration of the mayoral term
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn election for Mayor of Clermont was held on December 11, 1956, between candidates O. H. Keene and William Boyd. Eighteen ballots were marked with ch…
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 Declaratory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
A complaint was filed by F. S. Bliven against certain officials of the City of Clermont, alleging in effect that O. H. Keene and William Boyd were candidates for the office of Mayor of the City of Cler-mont for a one year term; that an election was held by the said city on December 11, 1956, at which time 18 ballots were marked with a check mark opposite a blank line left on the ballot below the name of O. H. Keene. The election officials concluded that the 18 ballots should not be counted for either of the two candidates for Mayor. The defendants, acting as a Board of Canvassers of said election, concluded these ballots should be counted for O. H. Keene, which resulted in the said O. IT. Keene being declared by the Board to have been elected Mayor by a vote of 265 to 250. By his complaint Bliven sought a declaratory decree to determine the validity of the election.
After filing of the complaint, a motion to dismiss was filed and subsequently a petition to intervene was filed on behalf of William Boyd. The Circuit Judge entered an order granting the motion to dismiss.
An appeal was taken on behalf of F. S. Bliven and also on behalf of William Boyd, the petitioner for right to intervene. This appeal was taken on the 22nd of March, 1957. Subsequently, the appellant Bliven filed a motion on the 30th day of September, 1957, with the Supreme Court to have the appeal dismissed as to him, which was granted. Subsequently thereto, the Court entered an order transferring the case, pursuant to Section 26(6), Article V of the constitution as amended at the general election in November, 1956, F.S.A., to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, for consideration and determination. The above case came on for oral argument before the Second District Court of Appeal at Tavares, January 10, 1958, and upon inquiry of the Court, the attorney representing the appellant Boyd stated that the term of office for which the appellant had been elected expired the 1st of January, 1958.
It being apparent to the Court that no relief could be afforded the appellant if this Court should reverse the lower court on a question of law, it would be useless to do 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friends OF THE Everglades, Inc. v. S. Fla. Reg'l Planning Council & City Nat'l Bank of Miami, 447 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); In re Estate of Lindsay, 207 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Gill v. City of North Miami Beach, 156 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Coursen v. City of South Daytona, 127 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961); Bliven v. Turville, 100 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Appeal dismissed.…
-
Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gulf Heating & Refrigeration Co., Inc., 195 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…ith the decision of the Supreme Court. It therefore appears that the legal question upon which the appellant would have us decide has become moot and nothing would be accomplished by our decision on that question. Bliven v. Turville, Fla.App. 1958, 100 So. 2d 91; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals § 291 (Rev. ed. 1963). The appeal is dismissed ex mero motu. Appeal dismissed. SHANNON and PIERCE, JJ., concur.…
-
Polly P. Seidner v. Seidner, 385 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…2d 258 (Fla.1943); Young v. Quinn, 351 So .2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Gulf Life Insurance Company v. Newell’s Incorporated, 226 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); In re Estate of Lindsay, 207 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); F. S. Bliven v. Turville, 100 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Conceding mootness, the appellant urges that the issues in this case are “capable of repetition, yet evading review” and that, therefore, we should retain jurisdiction and entertain this appeal. We disagree. See Roe v. Wade, 410…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- McCormick v. Bond, 75 Fla. 819 (Fla. 1918)
- Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- THE Phifer State Bank v. Clark Gourley, 153 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1943)
- DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995 (Fla. 1926)