STATE, EX REL CHARLES H. CRIM, RELATOR,
v.
J. H. JUVENAL, AS CHAIRMAN, ET AL., AS MEMBERS AND COMPOSING AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., 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.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed an alternative writ of mandamus because some respondents had been succeeded in office, making it impossible for them to comply. The court granted the relator leave to amend the writ to include the proper parties.
Yes, the alternative writ should be quashed because the original respondents can no longer execute its commands. However, the relator should be granted leave to amend the writ to include the proper parties respondent.
“Where by reason of the expiration of the term of office of a designated respondent to an alternative writ of mandamus, the succession of another to the office vacated by such respondent would make it impossible for the named respondent to execute the commands of the alternative writ as first issued, the alternative writ should be amended so as to'make the proper parties respondent to it as of the time it is required to be performed and carried into effect by the peremptory judgment of the issuing court.”
Establishes the rule for amending writs of mandamus when respondents are succeeded in office.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case was before the Florida Supreme Court on a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus. Some of the original respondents to the writ had been suc…
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
The law of this case has been settled by the previous opinions of this Court herein. See State, ex rel. Crim v. Juvenal, 121 Fla. 69, 163 Sou. Rep. 569. The case is now before the Court on relator’s motion for a peremptory writ the subsequently filed return of the respondents to the contrary notwithstanding.
Since it has been appropriately made to appear that some of the named respondents to the original writ have been succeeded in office by-others elected thereto subsequent to the institution of this proceeding, and no amendment to the *78original writ as' to parties has been applied for, the alternative writ is accordingly quashed, but with leave to relator to so amend same as to bring in the proper parties respondent thereto and to make such other amendments to the alternative writ as relators shall deem proper to secure effective relief, and which shall not be inconsistent with The opinions of this Court heretofore rendered as to the merits of this controversy.
Where by reason of the expiration of the term of office of a designated respondent to an alternative writ of mandamus, the succession of another to the office vacated by such respondent would make it impossible for the named respondent to execute the commands of the alternative writ as first issued, the alternative writ should be amended so as to'make the proper parties respondent to it as of the time it is required to be performed and carried into effect by the peremptory judgment of the issuing court.
Ordered accordingly.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City of Hialeah, 130 Fla. 370 (Fla. 1937)…of Columbia County v. Bryson, 13 Fla. 281; State, ex rel. Andreu, et al., v. Canfield, et al., City Council, 40 Fla. 36, 23 So. 591; State, ex rel. Williams, v. Bloxham, 42 Fla. 501, 28 So. 762; State, ex rel. Crim, v. Juvenal, et al., 121 Fla. 77, 163 So. 573; Board of County Commissioners v. Sellew, 99 U. S. 624, 25 L. Ed. 333; Thompson v. U. S., ex rel. Cambria Iron Co., 103 U. S. 480, 26 L. Ed. 521. The second and third questions urged may be combined and stated as follows: Is a new official board br…
Authorities Cited
- Waterman v. State, 121 Fla. 244 (Fla. 1935)
- State v. Juvenal, 121 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1935)