STATE EX REL WADE S. RIGBY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN LAMAR JUNKIN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 dismissed a writ of error challenging a candidate's right to run for the state legislature because the general election had already occurred, rendering the issue moot and outside the court's jurisdiction.
No, the Florida Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the right of an elected member of the Legislature to hold office, as this power rests solely with the Legislature. Yes, the issue is moot because the election has already occurred.
“This Court is without jurisdiction to determine the rights of one who has been elected a member of the Legislature to hold such office. That question is one which only the Legislature may determine.”
Establishes the court's lack of jurisdiction over legislative eligibility.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error filed a quo warranto action challenging the defendant in error's right to be a candidate for the Florida Legislature. The trial…
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 Legislative Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
Order
In this case, which is before us on writ of error to judgment in favor of respondent on demurrer sustained to amended information in quo warranto challenging the right of respondent to enjoy the rights and privileges of a candidate for the office of representative of the County of Collier in the Legislature of 1941, it appears that since the institution of the proceedings the general election has been held and the questions presented are not now moot.
This Court is without jurisdiction to determine the rights of one who has been elected a member of the Legislature to hold such office. That question is one which only the Legislature may determine.
The issue presented is moot and no judgment which this Court could enter would affect the rights of the parties as they now stand.
So the writ of error is now dismissed.
So ordered.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Buford, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McPHERSON v. Flynn, 397 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1981)…ntests and the right to hold legislative office. The courts in this state are without jurisdiction to determine the right of one who has been elected to legislative office. English v. Bryant, 152 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1963); State ex rel. Rigby v. Junkin, 146 Fla. 347, 1 So. 2d 177 (1941). At common law, except for limited application of quo warranto, there was no right to contest in court any public election, because such a contest is political in nature and therefore outside the judicial power. See Hubbard v. A…
-
English v. Honorable Farris Bryant, 152 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1963)…as a member thereof. The Constitution of Florida, Art. Ill, Sec. 6, F.S.A., provides inter alia as follows : “Each house shall judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its own members, * * This Court in State ex rel. Rigby v. Junkin, 146 Fla. 347, 1 So. 2d 177 (1941), construed the quoted provision to mean that: “This Court is without jurisdiction to determine the rights of one who has been elected a member of the Legislature to hold such office. That question is one which only the Legislat…
-
Harden v. Garrett, 483 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1985)…ancing impact of a judicial inquiry into the legislative processes, the courts have held themselves without jurisdiction to evaluate legislator’s qualifications. McPherson; English v. Bryant, 152 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1963); State ex rel. Rigby v. Junkin, 146 Fla. 347, 1 So. 2d 177 (1941). We find no principled basis for distinguishing “qualifications” from the constitutionally co-equal terms of “elections” and “returns”, and disallowing judicial inquiry only into the first. The reasoning embraced by this Court…