ANNA WETHERELL, SUPERVISOR OF REGISTRATION; W. P. WILKINSON, CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
BEN D. THURSBY AND HONORABLE M. G. ROWE, AS JUDGE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR VOLUSIA COUNTY, RESPONDENTS
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.
A petition for writ of prohibition sought to disqualify a judge from presiding over a mandamus action concerning a ballot recount in Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court found that all issues had become moot due to the passage of time and dismissed the case, noting that issuance of a prohibition writ would serve no practical purpose.
The court unanimously determined that a writ of prohibition should issue but ultimately dismissed the case because all issues had become moot by the passage of time, rendering issuance of the writ futile.
“It appears that all the issues involved have become moot by reason of the passing of time.”
Court's explanation for dismissing the case despite having directed issuance of the writ
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBen D. Thursby filed a petition for mandamus on July 5, 1928, before Judge M. G. Rowe seeking a recount of ballots in specified precincts in Volusia C…
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 Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
— In this case the record shows that petition for writ of mandamus was filed July 5th, 1928, by Ben D. Thursby before the Honorable M. G. Rowe, judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, naming the petitioners herein as respondents.
Alternative writ of mandamus issued July 7th commanding the respondents to show cause on July 13th, 1928, why a recount should not be had as to the ballots in boxes of certain precincts in Volusia County, Florida, which precincts were specifically named in the writ. On July 11th the respondents filed suggestions of the disqualification of *109the judge and therewith presented supporting affidavits. On July 12th Judge Eowe made an order holding himself not disqualified to officiate as judge in determining the rights of the parties in the cause.
On July 13th, 1928, the respondents in the court below filed a petition in this Court for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the said Judge M. G. Eowe from proceeding to officiate as judge in the cause. Eule to show cause was issued on the same day and thereafter Judge Eowe filed a demurrer to the petition and rule to show cause and Thursby filed return to the rule.
On September 28th the petitioners filed motion to quash the return and for the issuance of writ of prohibition absolute.
On consideration of the motion for writ of prohibition absolute the court unanimously directed that such writ be issued but because of oversight or inadvertence, the writ of prohibition absolute was never issued and the record in the case has been brought to our attention to be disposed of.
It appears that all the issues involved have become moot by reason of the passing of time. ■ Nothing can now be accomplished by the issuance of an order of prohibition absolute, or any other order, as to the rights of the parties and, for this reason, the cause should be now dismissed and it is so ordered. •
Dismissed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)…ified, for the sole purpose of establishing a principle to govern other cases.’ See Sec. 766, page 710 of High’s Extra-ordinary Legal Remedies. Also see 50 C.J. page 662, paragraph 18, and authorities cited.” Cf. Wetherell v. Thursby, 100 Fla. 108, 129 So. 345 (1930), wherein this Court held that, where issues had become moot by the passing of time, the proceeding in prohibition must be dismissed. Prohibition will be invoked only in emergency cases to forestall an impending present injury where person se…
-
State ex rel. Hendricks v. Hunt, 70 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1954)…ised in the petition as to the judge’s power to impose a contempt penalty upon the relator is also not before us, because it has been made to appear at the bar of this Court that this question has become moot. See Wetherell v. Thursby, 100 Fla. 108, 129 So. 345. But' even if it were not moot by reason of the fact that the sentence has already been served, it is settled that prohibition is not the proper remedy to correct alleged past abuses but only “to forestall an impending, present injury.” Joughin v. P…
-
Morton Stern v. Stern, 75 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1954)…om custody. Consequently, any question as to whether or not the imprisonment order was valid in the first instance has now become moot and may not be reviewed. State ex rel. Hendricks v. Hunt, Fla., 70 So. 2d 301; Wetherell v. Thursby, 100 Fla. 108, 129 So. 345; DeHoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258. While it is true that the petitioner may again be held in contempt if he fails to comply with that portion of the order requiring him to post bond to guarantee future payments of alimony, such a conte…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence