THE STATE OF FLORIDA UPON THE RELATION OF JOHN T. GRAHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
ROY E. DEAN, 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.
This case concerns the due process rights of a suspended County Judge. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's finding that the judge's due process rights were not violated during his suspension and removal from office.
No, the relator's due process rights were not violated. The circuit court's finding that due process was not violated was supported by adequate evidence.
“the circuit court held, on adequate evidence, that the relator's rights to due process were not violated, so this finding must stand.”
Establishes the basis for the appellate court's affirmation of the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCounty Judge John T. Graham was suspended by the Governor. After a meeting with the Governor and his attorney, the Senate, during an extraordinary ses…
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 Quo Warranto cases and more on FLexlaw
Governor Burns suspended County Judge Graham and later conferred with him and his attorney. The testimony is conflicting, but the circuit court held, on adequate evidence, that the relator’s rights to due process were not violated, so this finding must stand. See State ex rel. Kelly v. Sul*581livan, 52 So.2d 422 (Fla.1951) and cases there cited.
Article III, Section 2A of our constitution, F.S.A. forbids the legislature from transacting other business at its organizational session, so the Senate did not act in November, 1966, but in January, 1967, Governor Kirk transmitted the suspension papers to the Senate when it met in an extra session, and the Senate removed Graham. Prior to that session he had not requested a hearing before the Senate or its appropriate committee.
The circuit court’s denial of quo war-ranto is supported by the record.
LILES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.