E. A. SMITH, AS MAYOR OF CITY OF SARASOTA, ET AL.,
v.
STATE, EX REL. M. M. ALLY, A WIDOW
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 affirmed a lower court's decision granting a writ of mandamus. The case centered on whether a tax levy to pay a claim should account for the usual percentage of taxes paid annually.
No, the lower court did not err. The question must be determined adversely to the contention of the plaintiff in error.
“Whether it is error for the Court to order alternative and peremptory writs of mandamus requiring the levy of a tax to pay the relator's claim 'taking into consideration the usual percentage of taxes paid during the year.'”
This quote states the central legal question presented to the court.
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 involves a writ of error challenging a final judgment that awarded a peremptory writ of mandamus. The core issue was whether the court erred …
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 Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
Under the writ of error we are asked to review final judgment awarding peremptory writ of mandamus.
The only question presented for our determination is as stated by the plaintiff in error, as follows:
“Whether it is error for the Court to order alternative and peremptory writs of mandamus requiring the levy of a tax to pay the relator’s claim 'taking into consideration the usual percentage of taxes paid during the year.’ ”
The question must be determined adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of State, ex rel. Gillespie, v. Baskin, et al., 102 Fla. 329, 136 Sou. Rep. 262.
This case is to be distinguished from the case of State, ex rel. Havana State Bank, v. Rodes, 116 Fla. 824, 157 Sou. Rep. 33, which was decided on the basis of the particular budgetary statutes applicable to county finances under the county budget law.
It follows that the judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Teeeell and Bufoed, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Davis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
(dissenting). — As I see it, the effect of the statutes relating to 'the City of Sarasota is that in making up the budget they should be governed by the laws applicable to County Commissioners. Hence the principle stated in the Rodes case, above cited, should apply.
Beown, J.
(dissenting). — As I see it, the effect of the statutes relating to 'the City of Sarasota is that in making up the budget they should be governed by the laws applicable to County Commissioners. Hence the principle stated in the Rodes case, above cited, should apply.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States ex rel. Jones v. City of W. Palm Beach, 94 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1938)…er v. Searles, 141 Minn. 267, 170 N.W. 198; State v. Crites, 48 Ohio St. 460, 28 N.E. 178; State ex rel. Havana State Bank v. Rodes, 116 Fla. 824, 157 So. 33; State ex rel. Gillespie v. Baskin, 102 Fla. 329, 136 So. 262; Smith v. State ex rel. Ally, 126 Fla. 546, 171 So. 513; Rountree v. State ex rel. Georgia Bond & Mortgage Co., 102 Fla. 246, 135 So. 888; Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irr. Dist., 8 Cir., 248 F. 369; United States v. Saunders, 8 Cir., 124 F. 124; Lafayette County v. Wonderly, 8 Cir., 92 F. 313…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Baskin, 102 Fla. 329 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Rodes, 116 Fla. 824 (Fla. 1934)