IN RE INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 73-6, HAL P. DEKLE, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
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 granted a motion to dismiss proceedings against a Supreme Court Justice where the Judicial Qualifications Commission had taken all evidence, formally voted, and received no further evidence, holding that public policy requires finality once the Commission completes its formal process.
Once the Judicial Qualifications Commission has taken all evidence and formally voted according to its rules, that vote should end the matter unless a reason is shown to defer or take further evidence.
[1] Once a judicial qualifications commission completes its evidentiary hearing and takes a formal vote according to its rules, public policy requires that the matter be conc…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Judicial Qualifications Commission conducted an inquiry concerning Supreme Court Justice Hal P. Dekle and took a formal vote that was insufficient…
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 Res Adjudicata cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have before us, along with the merits of this matter, a motion to dismiss the proceedings based upon the ground that the Judicial Qualifications Commission was without jurisdiction to further pursue the matter, since they had taken a formal vote which was insufficient to base an affirmative recommendation on, and thereafter the Commission received no further evidence in the matter. We heard oral arguments on this motion and thereafter we deferred action until we had heard oral arguments on the merits. We now rule upon the motion to dismiss, making further consideration on the merits unnecessary.
We recognize that we do not apply the law of estoppel or res adjudicata. However, it is our considered opinion that public policy demands in matters of this importance that once the Commission has taken all their evidence and formally voted according to their rules and regulations, that that should spell an end to the matter unless there is a reason shown why it should be deferred or further evidence is taken.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted.
So ordered.
ADAMS (Retired) Supreme Court Justice, JOHNSON, District Court Judge and DUVAL, NELSON and KELLY, Circuit Court Judges, concur. MASON, Circuit Court Judge, dissents with opinion, with which McDONALD, Circuit Court Judge, concurs.
MASON, Circuit Court Judge
(dissenting) :
I would deny the motion and decide this case upon its merits.
McDONALD, Circuit Court Judge, concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge [Hal P. Dekle] No. 74-14 Before Fla. Jud. Qualifications Comm'n, 308 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge [Hal P. Dekle] No. 74-14 Before Fla. Jud. Qualifications Comm'n, 308 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1975)