STATE EX REL. WALLACE A. BELL
v.
HOLLIS RINEHART, JR.
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, a companion to State ex rel. Whitley v. Rinehart, involves a dispute over election results for the Coral Gables City Commission. The court dismissed the writ, finding that the relator failed to meet the burden of proof required to overturn the election results.
No, the relator did not present sufficient evidence to overturn the election results. The court found that the evidence required to prove illegal votes was higher in this case than in the companion case, and thus the writ must be dismissed.
“It will therefore require a higher degree of proof as to illegal votes cast in the manner alleged to throw doubt into the result of the election as to Bell than as to Whitley.”
This quote explains why the relator's claim is weaker than the claim in the companion case and sets the standard of proof.
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, Wallace A. Bell, contended he was third highest in votes for the Coral Gables City Commission and thus entitled to a two-year term. This …
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 Absentee Ballots cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a companion case of State of Florida ex rel. Joe W. Whitley v. Hollis Rinehart, Jr., decided this date. The informations are identical except that in the Whitley case, it is contended that relator was second high man voted for and was entitled to a four-year term on the City Commission of Coral Gables whereas in this case, relator contends that he was third high and is entitled to the two-year term on the city commission.
Both these cases grew out of the same election, the facts of which are detailed in our opinion in the Whitley case. In the latter case, Whitley led Rinehart 32 votes, not counting the absentee votes but counting both machine and absentee vote Rinehart led Whitley one vote. In the instant case, Bell led Rinehart 26 votes not counting the absentee vote, but counting both machine and the absentee vote, Rinehart led Bell 15 votes. It will therefore require a higher degree of proof as to illegal votes cast in the manner alleged to throw doubt into the result of the election as to Bell than as to Whitley.
Otherwise the law and facts are identical with those in State ex rel. Joe W. Whitley v. Hollis Rinehart, Jr., so the *657writ must be and is hereby dismissed with like directions as were given in the last cited case.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.