ARCHIE E. STORCH, R. K. BUTLER, G. B. EPPERSON, C. A. CLAYTON AND DREW CROFT, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND STANLEY C. BURNSIDE, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
SAM Y. ALLGOOD, JR., A CITIZEN REGISTERED VOTER AND TAX PAYER OF PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE; ARCHIE E. STORCH, R. K. BUTLER, G. B. EPPERSON, C. A. CLAYTON AND DREW CROFT, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANTS, V. SAM Y. ALLGOOD, JR., A CITIZEN, REGISTERED VOTER AND TAX PAYER OF PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 consolidated two cases challenging actions by the Pasco County Board of Commissioners involving County Commissioner George Epperson. After Epperson resigned from office, the court found the critical issues had become moot and remanded the cases to the trial court for further consideration in light of the changed circumstances.
The cases became moot due to Epperson's resignation and acceptance by the Governor. The court remanded the cases to the trial judge for further consideration and appropriate disposition in light of the changed circumstances and subsequently occurring events.
“the critical issue involved has become moot, by virtue of the resignation of one, George Epperson, from the office of County Commissioner of Pasco County, District 3, which resignation has been accepted by the Governor and became effective March 1, 1966”
Establishes the basis for finding mootness and the factual foundation for the court's decision to remand
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe cases involved challenges to actions by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, specifically regarding County Commissioner George Epperson…
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.
The cases above styled have been consolidated for consideration by this Court on the ground that the issues involved are the same.
By motion of the appellants and a response of the appellee, it is now been made to appear to the Court that the critical issue involved has become moot, by virtue of the resignation of one, George Epperson, from the office of County Commissioner of Pasco County, District 3, which resignation has been accepted by the Governor and became effective March 1, 1966. In view of the mootness of this critical issue, and in order to enable the Trial Judge to make appropriate disposition of this and related litigation now pending, in the light of events which have occurred subsequent to the decrees involved in the instant appeals, this Court now finds that said issues have become moot and concludes that these cases should be returned to the Trial Judge for further consideration and ultimate decision in the light of the subsequently occurring events. It is, therefore, ordered that this Court does hereby relinquish jurisdiction of the above styled cases and remands the same to the Trial Judge for appropriate disposition under the circumstances.
The Court judicially knows that the qualifying deadline for candidates for the office of County Commissioner occurs at 12:00 Noon, March IS, 1966. In view of the interest of the public in the pending litigation and in order to enable the Trial Judge promptly to proceed further in the premises, including the entry of any orders which he might deem appropriate to protect the interest of those who wish to seek the office of County Commissioner, District 3, Pasco County, Florida, the Court will entertain no petition for re-hearing and the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue this Court’s mandate simultaneously with the filing of this opinion.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aurora Enters., Inc. v. State, 395 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…court may depart from this principle when “by so doing, it can shorten litigation and best subserve the ends of justice.” 5B C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 1842 (1958); Southern Brewing Co. v. May, 122 Fla. 782, 165 So. 909 (1936); see, Storch v. Allgood, 184 So. 2d 170 (Fla.1966) (mootness); 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error § 728 (1962), and cases cited at n.18. . Plainly, no hard and fast rule may be laid down as to the precise period which constitutes a “meaningful time” for a post-suspension hearing. The length of…