P. DONALD DEHOFF
v.
T. C. IMESON, FRED M. VALZ, GUY L. SIMMONS, P. M. ULSCH AND GEORGE A. PIERCE, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ELECTIONS OF THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
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 an appeal of a mandamus case where the relator sought a certificate of election to a city council seat after the trial court quashed the writ. The appeal was dismissed as moot because the term of office for which the certificate was sought had already expired before the appellate record was complete for review.
The appeal was dismissed as moot because the issues presented had become merely academic and no practical result could be attained by reviewing them. Although the court has jurisdiction to decide moot cases when issues are of general public importance, the relator would receive no benefit from a certificate of election for a term already expired, as it would be legally impossible to be seated in an expired office.
“Although this Court has jurisdiction to determine a controversy, even though by lapse of time the issues presented have become moot, it will not do so unless the questions presented are of general public interest and importance, or unless such judgment as this Court might enter would affect the rights of the parties as they stand at the time the case is reviewed.”
Establishes the court's standard for reviewing moot cases and the discretion it exercises in deciding whether to address them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceP. Donald DeHoff sought a mandamus writ requiring the Jacksonville City Commission, acting as the Board of Canvassers of Elections, to issue him a cer…
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 Public Interest Exception To Mootness cases and more on FLexlaw
We have been asked to review a final judgment quashing an alternative writ of mandamus, after return duly filed by the respondents and testimony taken. The command of the alternative writ is that the members of the Board of City Commissioners of the City of Jacksonville as and constituting the City Board of Canvassers of Elections of said City be required to convene and issue to relator a certificate of his election to the office of councilman of the fifteenth ward of said City, to fill an unexpired term ending in June, 1943; or to show cause for failure so to do.
Suit was instituted in the trial court on July 3, 1941. Final 'judgment quashing the alternative writ was entered on October 9, 1942. The appeal from the adverse judgment was taken on November 27, 1942. The complete record on appeal, which included the briefs of the parties, was not filed here until July 31, 1943, and the parties did not argue the case before this Court until October 1, 1943.
It is apparent from the record that the issues presented have become moot; the term of office for which relator sought his certificate of election having expired on June 15, 1943— a date prior to the time that the record was complete for consideration by this court.
Although this Court has jurisdiction to determine a controversy, even though by lapse of time the issues presented have become moot, it will not do so unless the questions presented are of general public interest and importance, or unless such judgment as this Court might enter would affect the rights of the parties as they stand at the time the case is reviewed. Assuming that relator is entitled to a judgment requiring respondents to issue him a certificate of election (a point not now necessary to be decided under the circumstances) it would avail him nothing, even though used as a predicate for quo warranto to try title to office, as it would be legally impossible for relator to be seated in the office of Councilman of the City of Jacksonville for a term already expired. The questions raised on appeal, therefore, have become merely academic.
*555An appeal should be dismissed where no practical result could be attained by reviewing the questions therein contained. DuBose, County Judge, et al., v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995, 110 So. 546. Under such circumstances the appeal may be dismissed of the court’s own motion. Barrs v. Peacock, et ah, 65 Fla. 12, 61 So. 118.
Appeal dismissed at cost of appellant.
It is so ordered.
BUFORD, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (44 total)
-
Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)…to dismiss, and answer the rephrased question certified by the First District Court of Appeal. An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect. Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258 (1943). A case is “moot” when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist. Black’s Law Dictionary 1008 (6th ed.1990). A moot case generally will be dismissed. Florida courts recognize at least three instances in which…
-
Montgomery v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 468 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…e decision, an intervening event makes it impossible for the court to grant a party any effectual relief. 3 Fla.Jur.2d, Appellate Review, § 287, p. 337. Mootness can be raised by the appellate court on its own motion. DeHoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258 (1943); Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12, 61 So. 118 (1913). The rule discouraging review of moot cases is derived from the requirement of the United States Constitution, Article III, under which the existence of judicial power depends upon the existenc…
-
State v. Kinner, 398 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1981)…etermine a controversy where issues have become moot, unless the questions presented are of general public interest and importance, or unless such judgment as this Court might enter would affect the rights of parties. DeHoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258 (1943); Sarasota County v. Town of Longboat Key, 343 So. 2d 39 (Fla.1977). We feel that this case raises a question of great public importance, the resolution of which will affect a significant number of retarded citizens who are presently instituti…
Previewing 3 of 44 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995 (Fla. 1926)
- Granville v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
- Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12 (Fla. 1913)