STATE, EX REL. ULY O. THOMPSON,
v.
ROBERT W. DAVIS, AS SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, WELDON G. STARRY, AS CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND R. A. GRAY, SECRETARY OF 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 denied a petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the relator failed to demonstrate that the requested correction of legislative records would serve any right or benefit him, rendering the writ fruitless.
No, a writ of mandamus should not be issued if it would be fruitless and would not subserve any right of the relator, even if the underlying legislative act might be questionable.
“To warrant mandamus against legislative officers under the rule laid down in State, ex rel. Landis, v. Thompson, 121 Fla. 561, 164 Sou. Rep. 192, the relator must show that the relief sought is necessary to effectuate some right on relator's part that if not so subserved will be lost.”
Establishes the requirement for a relator to show a specific right or benefit to be gained from the requested mandamus relief.
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 filed an amended petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to correct legislative records concerning Senate Bill No. 4. The relator alleged …
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 amended petition for mandamus filed herein on August 6, 1936, is disallowed on the authority of the opinion filed in the companion case of State, ex rel. *477Landis, v. Thompson, decided this date. See: 125 Fla. 466, 170 Sou. Rep. 464.
To warrant mandamus against legislative officers under the rule laid down in State, ex rel. Landis, v. Thompson, 121 Fla. 561, 164 Sou. Rep. 192, the relator must show that the relief sought is necessary to effectuate some right on relator’s part that if not so subserved will be lost.
The pleading tendered in this case fails to show that Senate Bill No. 4 (Chapter 17085, Acts of 1935) was not constitutionally passed during the sixty days session of the Legislature even though it was enrolled and signed by the Governor after that time, as alleged. See: State, ex rel. Cunningham, v. Davis, 122 Fla. 700, 166 Sou. Rep. 574.
Therefore, since the writ fails to show that the corrections in the legislative records herein sought to be made, if ordered, will be of any benefit to relator, or will operate to subserve any right entitled to be enjoyed by him if Chapter 17085, Acts 1935, was validly passed, the writ if awarded would be fruitless and should be denied on the authority of Davis v. Crawford, 95 Fla. 438, 116 Sou. Rep. 41; State, ex rel. Catts, v. Crawford, 72 Fla. 254, 73 Sou. Rep. 588.
Amended mandamus denied.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., and Brown, J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Crawford, 95 Fla. 438 (Fla. 1928)
- State v. Uly O. Thompson, 121 Fla. 561 (Fla. 1935)
- State v. Lee, 122 Fla. 700 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. Lee, 121 Fla. 550 (Fla. 1935)
- State ex rel. Sidney J. Catts v. Crawford, 72 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1916)
- State v. Uly O. Thompson, 125 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1936)