STATE, EX REL. L. P. CHALMERS,
v.
DAVID SHOLTZ, J. M. LEE AND W. V. KNOTT, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE
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 lower court's denial of a peremptory writ of mandamus, finding the lower court erred based on a prior, analogous ruling. The case involved a dispute over the State Board of Administration's actions.
Yes, the Circuit Court erred in denying the peremptory writ of mandamus. The legal theory relied upon by the Circuit Court was previously determined to be erroneous by this Court in a similar case.
“Since the judgment rendered on that theory was held erroneous in the last cited case, it must likewise be held erroneous in this case, which is an analogous view of the applicable law.”
This quote explains the core reasoning for reversing the lower court's decision, emphasizing the reliance on a prior, analogous ruling.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator sought a peremptory writ of mandamus against the State Board of Administration in the Circuit Court of Leon County. The Circuit Court deni…
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 Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
Judgment was rendered in this case in the Circuit Court of Leon County on May 6, 1935, refusing relator below a peremptory writ of mandamus against the State Board of Administration (Chapter 14486, Acts 1929). The facts and circumstances of this case are similar to those brought for review here in the case of State, ex rel. Andrews, v. Sholtz, Governor, 120 Fla. 423, 162 Sou. Rep. 865 (Opinion filed July 8, 1935), which last mentioned case was decided by this Court subsequent to the judgment below in this case.
The Circuit Judge ruled against plaintiff in error in this case on the same theory of law that he ruled against the plaintiff in error in the case of State, ex rel. Andrews, v. *515Sholtz, supra. Since the judgment rendered on that theory was held erroneous in the last cited case, it must likewise be held erroneous in this case, which is an analogous view of the applicable law.
Therefore, upon the authority of State, ex rel. Andrews, v. Sholtz, supra; the judgment in this case is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with, the opinion in the case last referred to.
Reversed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sholtz v. State, 124 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1936)…etermine, after oral argument and deliberate reconsideration, whether or not this case is at all distinguishable, in principle, from the cases of State, ex rel. Andrews, v. Sholtz, 120 Fla. 423, 162 Sou. Rep. 865; State, ex rel. Chalmers, v. Sholtz, 121 Fla. 514, 163 Sou. Rep. 926; Sholtz v. State, ex rel. Chalmers, 123 Fla. 100, 166 Sou. Rep. 319, Sholtz v. State, ex rel. Ben Hur Life Association, 122 Fla. 238, 165 Sou. Rep. 34, and Sholtz v. State, ex rel. Ben Hur Life Association, 122 Fla. 249, 165 Sou.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sholtz, 120 Fla. 423 (Fla. 1935)