STATE EX REL. ERNEST DART
v.
JOHN D. BAKER, AS CLERK CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURTS OF RECORD, DUVAL COUNTY, ET AL.
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 a mandamus action where the Florida Supreme Court considered a demurrer and a motion to strike filed by the relator against the respondents' return. The Court ruled on these procedural motions, ordering the demurrer to be overruled and the motion to strike to be granted in part.
The Court held that the demurrer should be overruled and the motion to strike should be granted only as to specific paragraphs of the return.
“The Court has heard the argument of counsel for the respective parties and is of the opinion that the demurrer should be overruled and that the motion should be denied except as to paragraphs four to nine, inclusive, of Section IX.”
This quote states the Court's decision on the procedural motions before it.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator filed a mandamus action against the Clerk of Civil and Criminal Courts of Record of Duval County. The case had been before the Court on tw…
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 Demurrer cases and more on FLexlaw
The pleadings in this case were considered by the Court on two previous occasions. State ex rel. Dart v. Baker, 132 Fla. 820, 182 South. Rep. 223; State ex rel. Dart v. Baker, 138 Fla. 432, 189 South. Rep. 416.
The matter is now presented upon the demurrer of the relator addressed to the respondents’ return to the alternative writ of mandamus as amended and the motion of the relator to strike various parts of that pleading.
The Court has heard the argument of counsel for the respective parties and is of the opinion that the demurrer should be overruled and that the motion should be denied except as to paragraphs four to nine, inclusive, of Section IX.
It is, therefore, ordered that the demurrer be overruled and that the motion to strike paragraphs four to nine, inclusive, of Section IX, be granted.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milohnich v. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami Springs, 224 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…istence of the sortof implied contract described by the majority, or a usage of the banking tradeas -described by the majority. In either event, the trier of fact must decide whether such an implied contract exists (see Welborn v. Kemp, 141 Fla. 89, 192 So. 469 [1939]; Wabash Fire and Casualty Co. v. Holloway, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 145) or whether such a method of dealing is a usage of the banking trade (see § 671.1 — 205[2], Fla.Stat. [1967], F. S.A.) It should be noted at this point that a plaintiff r…
-
Minerva Goldstein and her husband v. Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., 142 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…car stop at all, and this may be what a jury would ultimately determine. Under the testimony, however, this conclusion is not the only reasonable one. Therefore, a jury and not the court should make this determination. Welborn v. Kemp, 141 Fla. 89, 192 So. 469. For the same reason, we must reject appellee’s contention that the plaintiff’s contributory negligence appears as a matter of law. Whether the danger of the protruding rod was an obvious one is a conclusion that must be made by weighing several fa…
-
Armao v. McKenney, 218 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…da recognizes oral cohabitation agreements between unmarried parties, we next consider whether the evidence was sufficient to show an oral agreement. The existence of an oral contract is an issue for the finder of fact. Welborn v. Kemp, 141 Fla. 89, 192 So. 469, 470 (1939). An appellate court reviews a trial court’s factual findings for competent substantial evidence. Griffin Indus., LLC v. Dixie Southland Corp., 162 So. 3d 1062, 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); see also Klosters Rederi A/S v. Jamaica Sun Tours,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Baker, 132 Fla. 820 (Fla. 1938)
- State ex rel. Ernest Dart v. Baker, 138 Fla. 432 (Fla. 1939)