MICHAEL Z. TAINES, PETITIONER,
v.
EDGAR H. GALVIN ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 denied a petition for rehearing in a case challenging the denial of certiorari regarding recall election procedures for city commissioners. Although lacking jurisdiction on the merits, the Court provided guidance clarifying that recall affidavits must contain specific charges of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance related to official duties—not merely vague allegations or unpopular decisions—and affirmed the lower court's injunction prohibiting the recall election.
The Court held that recall affidavits must contain specific charges of misdeeds related to the official duties of the office, not merely vague allegations, general beliefs, or unpopular actions within the official's authority. Errors in judgment and legitimate authorized actions, however unpopular, cannot constitute grounds for recall. The affidavits in this case were insufficient because they contained only general accusations and allegations of unpopular but authorized actions.
[1] Recall elections of city commissioners are primarily controlled by provisions of the city charter.
[2] A statement of grounds for recall must be more than vague allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance; it must contain charges of specific misdeeds related to…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Such a statement of grounds must be more than just a vague and general allegation of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance. The grounds must be more than 'beliefs' or 'ideas'; they must be charges of specific misdeeds which have some relationship to the councilman's performance of the duties of his office.”
Establishes the core standard for sufficiency of recall affidavit grounds under charters requiring a statement of grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaines sought a recall election of city commissioners by filing affidavits that contained general charges of 'misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasanc…
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.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
This cause was before us originally on petition for writ of certiorari. We examined the cases cited for conflict by petitioner and denied certiorari on April 6, 1973, by way of a unanimous decision that there was no direct conflict to vest jurisdiction in this Court.
On petition for rehearing, we have again considered the alleged conflicts, and we reaffirm our previous denial of certiorari. Through the line of cases cited for conflict there has developed in this State, albeit in piecemeal fashion, a consistent and logical set of rules to govern the removal of city commissioners through recall elections. The decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in the case sub judice, 272 So.2d 824, is in harmony with this line of decisions.
Although denying the petition for rehearing, and despite the fact that we have no jurisdiction to consider the case before us on the merits, we feel constrained to render a short opinion because of the subject matter involved and because of the lack of a complete and concise statement of the applicable law.
Recall elections of city commissioners are controlled primarily by provisions of the city charter. Basically, what we are concerned with here is the type of charter which provides for a recall election upon the filing of an affidavit which, among other things, contains a “statement of grounds” for which removal is sought. Such a statement of grounds must be more than just a vague and general allegation of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance. The grounds must be more than “beliefs” or “ideas”; they must be charges of specific misdeeds which have some relationship to the councilman’s performance of the duties of his office. Richard v. Tomlinson, 49 So.2d 798 (Fla.1951); Collins v. City of Opa-Locka, 251 So.2d 709 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1971); Piver v. Stallman, 198 So.2d *11859 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1967); Tolar v. Johns, 147 So.2d 196 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1962); Hines v. Dozer, 134 So.2d 548 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1961); Joyner v. Shuman, 116 So.2d 472 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1959); Gordon v. Leatherman, 450 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1971).
In addition, errors in judgment cannot be sufficient grounds for recall (Tolar v. Johns, supra); nor can legitimate and authorized actions, no matter how unpopular they are (Joyner v. Shuman, supra).
In the case sub judice, the affidavits for recall which were filed contained as grounds therefor a charge of general “misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfea-sance,” and three specific charges which amounted to no more than unpopular actions in regard to controversial issues. There were no allegations of actions which were beyond the councilmen’s authority or were in any way illegal. Clearly, these charges were insufficient under the rules above-cited.
City charters may, of course, contain less onerous requirements for recall affidavits, including no requirement at all for a statement of grounds. In Sproat v. Arnau, 213 So.2d 692 (Fla.1968), we considered a charter which provided that grounds would be sufficient if they were only that a majority of the electors had lost confidence in the commissioners sought to be recalled. We upheld an affidavit which alleged only such a loss of confidence.
The charter involved in the case now before us, however, did require a statement of grounds. The grounds stated were insufficient under the law. The District Court affirmance of a trial court injunction prohibiting the holding of a recall election was, therefore, proper and not in conflict with any of the cases cited.
Rehearing denied.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. Napotnik, 923 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…conduct. Rather, our courts have defined the term “malfeasance” as meaning, in the context of recall petitions, the commission of some act that is unlawful and related to the elected official’s performance of his duties in office. Taines v. Galvin, 279 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla.1973); Moultrie v. Davis, 498 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); see also Bent v. Ballantyne, 368 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1979). The instant recall petition alleges that Thompson violated Florida law; namely, the provisions of Florida’s Sunshine Law,…
-
Moultrie v. Davis, 498 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…please ten percent of the electorate. Such a result is obviously not the intent of the legislation. “[EJrrors in judgment cannot be sufficient grounds for recall; nor can legitimate and authorized actions, no matter how unpopular.” Taines v. Galvin, 279 So. 2d 9, 11 (Fla.1973). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court, cancel the recall election and remand this cause for entry of a final judgment in accordance herewith. LETTS, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. . Nor are there any allegations of incompetence,…
-
Garvin v. Jerome, 767 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2000)…petition alleging loss of confidence in elected officials, where the city charter provided that a charge that a majority of the electors had lost confidence in the commissioners sought to be recalled would be sufficient), cited in Taines v. Galvin, 279 So. 2d 9, 11 (Fla.1973). As stated by the McAlpine Court: [A] recall is different from an initiative. Sponsors of a recall petition want to remove a person from office. They would probably continue to want that person removed even if some of their grounds a…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richard v. Tomlinson, 49 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1951)
- Joyner v. Shuman, 116 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Tolar v. Johns, 147 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Hines v. Hester Dozer, 134 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Sproat v. Arnau, 213 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1968)
- Piver v. Stallman, 198 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Gordon v. Leatherman, 450 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Freemon Collins v. City OF Opa-Locka, 251 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Taines v. Galvin, 272 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Bufford v. Louie L. Wainwright, 272 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)