STATE, EX REL. J. H. SHERRILL, ET AL.,
v.
MARCUS A. MILAM, ET AL., AS BOARD OF COMRS., EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DIST., ET AL.

Fla. | 1934-09-11
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Brown, J. J., and Campbell and Bird, Circuit Judges, concur., , Davis, C. J., and Buford, J., disqualified.
116 Fla. 492 Florida Supreme Court (1934) Caution
Also reported at: 156 So. 497
Cited by 19 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court held final action in abeyance on relators' motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus regarding an Everglades Drainage District assessment roll, pending resolution of a federal court injunction that restrained the Board of Commissioners from transmitting the assessment roll to county tax assessors.


Holding

The Florida Supreme Court held its action on the relators' motions in abeyance to prevent unseemly conflict between state and federal court jurisdiction, pending resolution of the jurisdictional questions being litigated in the federal courts.


Key Quotes

“in order to prevent unseemly conflict between the jurisdiction of the two courts”

The Court's stated rationale for holding action in abeyance rather than proceeding with the mandamus writ

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The relators sought a peremptory writ of mandamus against the Board of Commissioners of the Everglades Drainage District regarding an assessment roll …

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.


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This cause coming on to be heard upon the motion of relators to quash the special answer and return of the respondents filed herein and upon the motion of relators for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus herein in accordance with the opinion filed in this' cause and reported in 153 Sou. at pages 100, 125 and 136; and it now being made to appear to the Court that since the filing of the judgment in this cause reported as aforesaid, that the Honorable Halsted L. Ritter, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in that certain cause pending before him, to-wit: Florida Ranch & Dairy Company, a Corporation, v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, has entered a permanent and final injunction in said cause restraining respondents herein from transmitting to the several tax as'sessors of the several counties embraced in whole or in part in the Everglades Drainage District, the assessment roll adjudged and ordered in the final judgment of this Court reported as aforesaid; and it being further made to appear to the Court that the respondents herein who are defendants in said chancery cause pending before said District Judge did before the issuance of said final decree and permanent injunction suggest to the said District Judge that said chancery cause was one which under the law required a hearing be*494fore three Federal Judges, one of- whom should be a Supreme Court Judge or a Circuit Judge of the United States and that said District Judge did proceed to hear and determine said chancery cause notwithstanding said suggestion; and that the said respondents herein have prepared and propose to submit to the Supreme Court of the United States a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to coerce the said District Judge to call to his assistance for the purpose of hearing and determining said injunction suit two Federal Judges one of whom should be a Supreme Court Judge or a Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals which said petition will be presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in due time; and it being further made to appear to the Court that the said respondents herein have prepared and will take an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit Court of the United States to review the decree and judgment of the said District Court wherein said permanent writ of injunction was' and has been issued; and it further appearing to the Court that in keeping with the dignity of this Court as also of the Federal Court, we in order to prevent unseemly conflict between the jurisdiction of the two courts “It is ordered that this Court hold final action on the motions now under consideration in abeyance until the question of jurisdiction is determined in the proceeding now before the Federal Court, or until the further order of this Court.

Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Brown, J. J., and Campbell and Bird, Circuit Judges, concur.

, Davis, C. J., and Buford, J., disqualified.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Schwartz v. DeLOACH, 453 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
    …(1930). Nevertheless, Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 826, 114 So. 548, 551 (1927), suggests that a stay of the action last filed is and should be “the usual practice” in the interests of state-federal comity. See also State ex rel. Sherrill v. Milam, 116 Fla. 492, 156 So. 497 (1934); and Jorge v. Antonio Co., 151 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, making no distinction between abatement and stay, has held unequivocally that a federal district court action…
  • Bedell v. Lassiter, 143 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1940)
    …l services rendered in 1932 in handling litigation, viz.: Rorick, et al., v. Board of Everglades Drainage District [*47] reported in 57 Fed. (2d) 1048; Rorick, et al., v. Knott, 69 Fed (2d) 708; State ex rel. Sherrill v. Milam, et al., 113 Fla. 491, 116 Fla. 492, 153 So. 100, 125, 136; State ex rel. Board of Comm’rs. v. Sholtz, 112 Fla. 756, 150 So. 878; Florida Ranch & Dairy Co. v. Everglades Drainage District, 74 Fed. (2d) 914; 293 U. S. 521. The judgment in the sum of $5,769.23 in behalf of Carter & Yong…
  • A. J. Armstrong Co., Inc. v. Romanach, 165 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
    …in abatement are not met, the state courts, with only a few exceptions, have recognized the power to stay a proceeding until the determination of a prior pending action. See Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548; State ex rel. Sherrill v. Milam, 116 Fla. 492, 156 So. 497; and 1 Fla.Jur., Abatement & Revival, § 9, p. 14. The general rule as to the stay of later actions in one jurisdiction on account of the pendency of a prior action in another ju [*819] risdiction contemplates that the cause of action on…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw