JAMES A. TREAT, AS MAYOR-COMMISSIONER AND CITY MANANAGER, ET AL.,
v.
STATE, EX REL BRET HEARTT
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 reversed a mandamus judgment against Winter Park city officers for being too broad in scope. The lower court issued an overly expansive writ requiring multiple distinct remedies in a single proceeding, violating established procedural rules for mandamus writs.
A peremptory writ of mandamus that is too broad in its terms and embraces requirements susceptible of wholly different character of defense is improper and must be reversed. The writ must be limited in scope and appropriate to the specific relief sought.
“Such judgment must be reversed on the ground that it provides for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus too broad in its terms, because embracing therein requirements susceptible of a wholly different character of defense and otherwise too broad within the purview of rule laid down by this Court applicable to such cases.”
Establishes the core holding that mandamus writs must be narrowly tailored and cannot combine multiple distinct requirements with different defenses.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelator (Bret Heartt) sought a peremptory writ of mandamus against city officers of Winter Park, Florida to compel payment of certain bonds. The lower…
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 Alternative Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case there was a final judgment awarding defendant in error a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the respondent city officers of Winter Park, Florida, to pay to relator all the moneys of said city in their custody *449applicable to the payment of relator’s bonds described in the alternative writ, not to exceed the total amount thereof, and requiring the respondents constituting the Commission and Sinking Fund Trustees of said city to forthwith pay all special assessment moneys collected pursuant to levies made to pay relator’s bonds, and requiring the City Clerk to pay over to relator from time to time all proceeds' realized from the collection of taxes levied for the purpose of paying relator’s bonds and requiring the City Commissioners to levy a special tax to pay all of relator’s past due coupons and bonds not paid from the funds on hand, and requiring the respondents to periodically on each second rule day thereafter to file certificates of compliance showing acts done toward performance of the commands of said writ. Such judgment must be reversed on the ground that it provides for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus too broad in its terms, because embracing therein requirements susceptible of a wholly different character of defense and otherwise too broad within the purview of rule laid down by this Court applicable to such cases. See City of Winter Haven v. State, ex rel. Baynes, 114 Fla. 527, 154 Sou. Rep. 879, and cases cited therein.
It is therefore considered,- ordered and adjudged that the judgment herein be and the same is hereby reversed and that this cause be remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to permit an appropriate amendment of the alternative writ conformable to the holding of this opinion, and thereon to award to relator a modified peremptory writ in accordance with the alternative writ of mandaamus as so amended. See McNally v. State, ex rel. Bond Realization Corp., 117 Fla. 33, 157 Sou. Rep. 430, for appropriate procedure to be followed in a case of this kind.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
*450Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Sarasota v. State, 125 Fla. 381 (Fla. 1936)…native in the event that there is not sufficient money on hand applicable with which to pay relator’s claim. The contention finds ample support in the case of McNally v. State, ex rel., 112 Fla. 434, 150 Sou. 751; Treat, et al., v. State, ex, rel., 118 Fla. 448, 159 Sou. 529; City of Winter Haven, et al., v. State, ex rel., 114 Fla. 527, 154 Sou. 879; City of Bradenton, et al., v. State, ex rel., 117 Fla. 578, 158 Sou. 165. Therefore, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded with directions t…
Authorities Cited
- City of Winter Haven v. State, 114 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1934)
- McNally v. State, 117 Fla. 33 (Fla. 1934)