RALPH J. SELLERS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
W. W. CULBERTSON, TAX ASSESSOR, AND PORTER HOMER, COUNTY MANAGER, METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLEES
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 involves an employee seeking back pay after reinstatement, but the court affirmed the lower court's denial of the claim, finding the employee's delay barred his assertion of the claim due to laches.
Yes, the employee was barred by laches from claiming back salary. The lower court's finding of laches was a factual determination supported by the evidence.
“The ruling concerning laches constitutes a finding of fact based upon the evidence.”
This quote establishes the nature of the laches determination as a factual finding.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRalph J. Sellers, Jr. was reinstated as an employee of Dade County after the county conceded the unconstitutionality of a county code section. Sellers…
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 Laches cases and more on FLexlaw
Ralph J. Sellers, Jr., appeals from a declaratory judgment which ruled that he was barred from asserting a claim for back salary after his reinstatement as an employee of Dade County. He was reinstated after the county conceded the unconstitutionality of Section 2-51, Code of Metropolitan Dade County, because of the holding in Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 88 S.Ct. 1913, 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968).
The ruling concerning laches constitutes a finding of fact based upon the evidence. See City of Miami v. Carter, Fla.1958, 105 So.2d 5; Metropolitan Dade County PI. C.E.B. v. State ex rel. Bishop, Fla.App. 1968, 216 So.2d 76. The record before us is insufficient to show error, and the judgment is affirmed upon authority of Renshaw v. State ex rel. Hickland, 149 Fla. 342, 5 So.2d 700 (1942).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malvin Englander v. State, 246 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1971)…ne v. State, 240 So. 2d 814 (Fla.1970). . 385 U.S 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967). . Id. at 497, 498, 87 S.Ct. at 618, 619. . 392 U.S. 273, 88 S.Ct. 1913, 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968). . Id. at 279, 88 S.Ct. at 1916. . Sellers v. Culbertson, 224 So. 2d 808 (Fla.App.3rd 1969). . Section 2-51: “If any person in the county service shall willfully refuse or fail to appear before any court or judge, any legislative committee or any officer, board or body authorized by law to conduct any hearing or inquiry…
-
United States v. Camacho, 739 F. Supp. 1504 (S.D. Fla. 1990)…loyment in this state." See Garrity, 385 U.S. at 494 n. 1, 87 S.Ct. at 617 n. 1. 11 .Several courts have found forfeiture of office statutes similar to § 40-98 to be unconstitutional under Garrity. See e.g. Sellers v. Culbertson, 224 So.2d 808 (Fla. 3 DCA 1969) (Dade County conceding that County forfeiture of office statute is unconstitutional under Garrity); Englander v. State, 246 So.2d 746 (Fla.1971) (holding Dade County Charter provision which provided for forfeiture of office o…
Authorities Cited
- Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1968)
- The City OF Miami v. Carter, 105 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1958)
- Renshaw v. State Ex Rel. Hickland, 5 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1942)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. Plumbing Contractors' Examining Bd. v. State of Fla. ex rel. W. H. Bishop, 216 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)