RICHARD KIRK DRIVER, AND C. W. (DUB) PALMORE, JR., PETITIONERS,
v.
TOM ADAMS, AS SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1967-03-22
No. 36176
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur., ROBERTS, J., concurs specially with Opinion.
196 So. 2d 916 Florida Supreme Court (1967) Caution
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the state's political party loyalty oath. The court found that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions did not supersede its prior rulings upholding similar oaths.


Holding

No, the U.S. Supreme Court decisions are inapposite and do not supersede the prior Florida Supreme Court rulings. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate justification for overruling the Florida cases.


Key Quotes

“In effect we are asked to recede from our prior decisions in Mairs v. Peters, Fla., 52 So. 2d 793 and Crowells v. Petersen, Fla., 118 So. 2d 539.”

Describes the core request of the petitioners and the prior Florida precedent at issue.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to challenge the validity of Florida's "political party loyalty oath" as prescribed by statute. They argued that…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

By their petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioners question the validity of various provisions of Florida’s so-called “political party loyalty oath” prescribed by Section 99.021(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

In effect we are asked to recede from our prior decisions in Mairs v. Peters, Fla., 52 So.2d 793 and Crowells v. Petersen, Fla., 118 So.2d 539. Petitioners insist that the rule of these cases has been superseded by principles announced in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 and Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 87 S.Ct. 339, 17 L.Ed.2d 235. We find the federal cases inapposite. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any justification for overruling the Florida cases cited. On the authority of those cases, the alternative writ of mandamus is quashed and the petition dismissed.

It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, J., concurs specially with Opinion.

ROBERTS, Justice

(concurring specially):

I agree with the judgment quashing the alternative writ of mandamus for the reason that, in my opinion, the petitioners are guilty of laches. Section 99.021(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., has been in existence for a number of years, yet petitioners come here on the very eve of an election seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. It is “too little and too late.”

Concurrence
ROBERTS, Justice

ROBERTS, Justice

(concurring specially):

I agree with the judgment quashing the alternative writ of mandamus for the reason that, in my opinion, the petitioners are guilty of laches. Section 99.021(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., has been in existence for a number of years, yet petitioners come here on the very eve of an election seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. It is “too little and too late.”

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …ersen, which rejected another constitutional challenge by a prospective candidate who objected to executing the oath. 118 So. 2d 539, 539 (Fla. 1960). And in Driver v. Adams, the Court rebuffed yet another attempt to invalidate the oath requirement. 196 So. 2d 916, 916 (Fla. 1967). None of these cases addressed the issue before us, as none of the prospective candidates executed the oath and qualified for the ballot. And the legal analysis focused on the constitutional arguments, not the interpretive question…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw