CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, ET AL.,
v.
STATE, EX REL. RALPH M. WINTERS, A RESIDENT OF LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO
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 judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandamus in favor of the City of Hollywood against state officials regarding tax matters, while permitting amendments to the writ and allowing the lower court discretion to modify its enforcement based on equitable principles.
The Court affirmed the judgment granting the peremptory writ of mandamus but required amendments to make the writ applicable to current tax rolls and present officials, and permitted the lower court to stay or modify the writ's enforcement on equitable grounds if the respondents could demonstrate grounds consistent with principles established in City of Sarasota v. State of Florida.
“it is necessary that the relators below do amend their peremptory writ of mandamus so as to make the same applicable to a current tax roll, and to the present officials in office of the respondent, in order that the same shall be an effective writ”
Establishes the Court's requirement that the writ be amended to remain current and applicable to ensure its effectiveness.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relators (City of Hollywood, et al.) sought a peremptory writ of mandamus against state officials (ex rel. Ralph M. Winters, a resident of Lucas C…
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
This cause coming on to be heard upon rehearing and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel and read and considered the briefs of the parties herein, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the judgment and that accordingly the said judgment should be and the same is now ordered affirmed.
But it appearing to the Court that it is necessary that the relators below do amend their peremptory writ of mandamus so as to make the same applicable to- a current tax roll, and to the present officials in office of the respondent, in order that the same shall be an effective writ, it is further ordered that said affirmance of the judgment' is with leave to make such amendments in the court below as will make the judgment for a peremptory writ of mandamus an effective judgment for the protection and enforcement of relators’ rights in the premises.
And it further appearing to the Court by petition of the defendant in error that the respondents below are desirous of presenting to and having considered by the Circuit Court an application for a modification of the strict enforcement of the peremptory writ of mandamus, if and as amended as aforesaid, in accordance with the principles declared by this Court in the following case recently here decided: City of Sarasota, et al., v. State of Florida, ex rel., R. W. Evans, opinion filed February 16, 1937; it is thereupon further considered, ordered and adjudged that the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby permitted to decide and determine, upon proper application, whether or not it shall stay the issuance or modify the enforcement of the peremptory writ of mandamus, judgment for which is hereby affirmed, in accordance with equitable principles, in order to permit the respondents to successfully complete their refunding operations if possible, retaining jurisdiction of such cause on its *155docket for such further appropriate orders as may be consistent with law and justice.
Let judgment be entered accordingly and mandate issued in conformity therewith.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.