STATE EX REL. ELIZABETH W. GARDINER, EXECUTRIX,
v.
W. F. BLANTON, JUDGE
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 denied a petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus filed by the executrix of an estate against a County Judge. The Court held that the alternative writ had been satisfied when the judge made orders addressing the subjects he was required to act upon, and that the Court cannot control the substance of a judge's orders on mandamus review.
The Court held that the alternative writ was sufficiently satisfied by the judge's return showing he made orders on all required subjects, and that mandamus cannot be used to control or direct the substance of those orders regardless of whether they are erroneous. The judge retains the right to formulate his own judgments on the subjects before him.
“The alternative writ was issued to require the respondent County Judge to make an order on the propositions submitted to him, not to direct or control the kind of order to be made.”
Establishes the limited scope of what an alternative writ requires—performance of a duty, not control over the substance of judicial decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator, Elizabeth W. Gardini, executrix of an estate, sought a peremptory writ of mandamus against W. F. Blanton, a County Judge. An alternative …
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 Peremptory Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause coming on to be heard upon the motion of the relator for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus pursuant to the terms of the alternative writ heretofore granted, notwithstanding the answer which has been filed in this' cause by the respondent; and also upon the motion of the respondent to quash the alternative writ; *306and it being the opinion of a majority of the Court that the answer of the respondent to the alternative writ sufficiently shows that the orders made and entered by the respondent are in compliance with the commands of said alternative writ;
It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the motion for is'suance of the peremptory writ be and the same is hereby denied, and it is further ordered that the alternative writ herein be and the same is hereby quashed and the petition therefor dismissed, at the cost of the relator.
The alternative writ was issued to require the respondent County Judge to make an order on the propositions' submitted to him, not to direct or control the kind of order to be made. The judge’s return certifies that he did, after the alternative writ was issued, make an order concerning each and every one of the subjects upon which the alternative writ required him to act. This was a sufficient return.
The majority view is that it is not within the province of this' Court in the instant case on the present writ of mandamus to undertake to control or direct the County Judge as to what kind of orders he shall enter, whether those he has entered are erroneous or not, since he is entitled to formulate his own judgments on the subjects he has undertaken to rule upon. Nor is anything to be implied from what is said in the present case, or from its result, that will restrict the right of the parties to offer any appropriate pleadings', or to take any other steps before the County Judge or the Circuit Court, looking to a proper presentation and retrial of the case before the County Judge pursuant to the mandate of this Court. Nor does this Court herein or hereby approve or disapprove what has been done by the County Judge as proper and right to be done, that question not being one for decision on mandamus.
*307It is to be assumed that the County Judge will actually retry the case as he was directed to do by the mandate. Such a retrial does not necessarily mean that all the witnesses must be personally recalled and re-examined. It is sufficient that such parts of the old record shall be re-offered in evidence and reconsidered by the County Judge as may be relevant or material to the issues, supplemented and added to by any additional evidence the parties' may care to submit in addition thereto.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Brown and Buford, J. J., dissent.-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rose, 123 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1936)…the performance of a public duty, the relator must have a clear legal right to the enforcement by the officer of that duty and no adequate method of redress other than mandamus must exist. See also in this connection, State v. Blanton, 112 Fla. 303, 150 So. 263; State, ex rel. Hillman, v. Hutchins, in 118 Fla. 220, 158 So. 716; State v. Robles, 111 Fla. 276, 150 So. 247; State v. Duncan, 116 Fla. 193, 150 So. 587. Where relator’s right to mandamus appears doubtful under the pleadings, motion to quash must…
-
City OF Coral Gables v. Sakolsky, 215 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…its jurisdiction in any particular way. Sanitarians’ Registration Bd. v. Solomon, Fla.App.1963, 148 So. 2d 744. State ex rel. North St. Lucie River Drainage Dist. v. Kanner, 1943, 152 Fla. 400, 11 So. 2d 889; State ex rel. Gardiner v. Blanton, 1933, 112 Fla. 305, 150 So. 263; State ex rel. Dykeman v. Petteway, 1928, 96 Fla. 74, 117 So. 696. It is true that Sakolsky instituted mandamus action against the Commission on February 5, 1965, but that suit sought the writ to compel the Commission to grant his appli…