STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. BERTHA M. BAILEY, ET AL.,
v.
HONORABLE ARTHUR GOMEZ, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed a writ of mandamus, holding that parties to a class action suit could present their claims to the chancellor after the main litigation concluded to have liens on their property cancelled, as per the prior ruling in a companion case.
Yes, parties to a class action suit can present their claims to the chancellor after the main litigation concludes to have liens on their property cancelled, provided they show their interest in the subject matter.
“When the latter case was decided by the circuit court, petitioners here applied for an order requiring the City of Miami Beach to pay them such amounts as accrued to them under the judgment therein.”
Describes the procedural posture and the petitioners' initial request.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners, parties to a class action suit against the City of Miami Beach, sought a writ of mandamus to compel payment of amounts accrued to them un…
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 Class Action Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a companion case to A. M. Tenney, et al., v. City of Miami Beach, decided December 22, 1942. When the latter case was decided by the circuit court, petitioners here applied for an order requiring the City of Miami Beach to pay them such amounts as accrued to them under the judgment therein. The Court had previously entered an order impounding the funds in the hands of the City for the purpose of enforcing a lien for expenses of the litigation including attorneys’ fees. Petitioners had not previously filed their claims with the chancellor; hence his refusal to recognize them and their reason for this proceeding in mandamus to enforce them.
In our view, the decree appealed from in Tenney, et al., v. City of Miami Beach was a recognition of the interest of all parties to the class in the subject matter of the litigation and when concluded, they were at liberty to make showing to the court of their interest and have the liens on their property cancelled in the manner provided in the opinion in that case. Our opinion in the Tenney case may be taken as authority to deal with petitioners in this case in the same manner that other parties to the cause are dealt with.
The alternative writ of mandamus is therefore quashed.
It is so ordered.
BUFORD, C. J., BROWN, CHAPMAN, THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
SEBRING, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frankel v. City OF Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976)…, at 293-94. (Explanation and emphasis added) These seven requirements have been held to have been met as to plaintiff classes in numerous cases, e. g., City of Miami v. Keton, 115 So. 2d 547 (Fla.1959); State ex rel. Bailey v. Gomez, 152 Fla. 355, 11 So. 2d 569 (1943); Tenney v. City of Miami Beach, 152 Fla. 126, 11 So. 2d 188 (1942); City of Miami Beach v. Tenney, 150 Fla. 241, 7 So. 2d 136 (1942); Town of Davenport v. Hughes, 147 Fla. 228, 2 So. 2d 851 (1941); State Road Department v. Bender, 147 Fla. 15…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Philip van Eeghen v. Williams, 87 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1956)…eat is actually a greater degree of proof than that which is required to establish guilt merely to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. See State ex rel. Freeman v. Kelly, Fla. 1956, 86 So. 2d 166; State ex rel. Hernandez v. Culbreath, 152 Fla. 356, 11 So. 2d 569; State ex rel. Connor v. Sullivan, 160 Fla. 844, 36 So. 2d 828. We pretermit any discussion of the details of the evidence in the case before us for the reason that we do not desire tO' indicate in any fashion this Court’s opinion on the weight or…
-
Columbus Fletcher Primm v. State, 293 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…eat, is actually a greater degree of proof than that which is required to establish guilt merely to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. See State ex rel. Freeman v. Kelly, Fla.1956, 86 So. 2d 166; State ex rel. Hernandez v. Culbreath, 152 Fla. 356, 11 So. 2d 569; State ex rel. Connor v. Sullivan, 160 Fla. 844, 36 So. 2d 828.” In James v. State, Fla. 1970, 241 So. 2d 383, the defendant James was indicted for first degree murder. At a subsequent preliminary hearing an eye-witness testified to the homicide. T…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence