ORANGE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
CITY OF ORLANDO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 court held that quo warranto is an adequate remedy at law, precluding equitable relief for challenging annexation ordinances, unless the Attorney General refuses to allow quo warranto.
Petitioner Orange County sought injunctive and declaratory relief against respondent City of Orlando's annexation ordinances. The District Court denie…
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 Quo Warranto cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the deci sion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reported at 309 So. 2d 16 (Fla.App. 4th 1975). The decision appears to conflict with Smith v. Ayres, 174 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1965), and does conflict with Town of Mangonia Park v. Homan, 118 So. 2d 585 (Fla.App.2d 1960), although it is in accordance with Caldwell v. Losche, 108 So. 2d 295 (Fla.App.2d 1959). We have jurisdiction to harmonize these decisions.1
Petitioner Orange County commenced this action against respondent City of Orlando for injunctive and declaratory relief from annexation ordinances of the City of Orlando. The District Court held that equitable relief was improper since petitioner had an adequate remedy at law available in a quo warranto inquiry into the legality of such municipal action, citing Caldwell v. Losche, supra. The opinion distinguished Smith v. Ayres, supra, and Town of Mangonia Park v. Homan, supra, on the grounds that the quo warranto issue was not raised in either of those cases.
While the District Court so distinguished Town of Mangonia Park v. Homan, supra, the court in that case did consider the appropriateness of a quo warranto proceeding and declined to dismiss the equitable action upon that ground. Direct conflict is therefore apparent.
We agree with the opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in the instant case for the reasons expressed therein, and affirm. Petitioner has an adequate remedy at law in quo warranto. In the event quo warranto is not available, i. e., the Attorney General refuses to allow quo warranto to proceed, then an action for injunctive and declaratory relief would be proper. The conflict previously appearing in opinions of the District Courts and this Court having been dispelled, the writ heretofore issued is discharged.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. . Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Florida House OF Representatives v. The Honorable Charles J. Crist, Jr., 999 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2008)…y affected absent an immediate determination by this Court.” Phelps, 714 So. 2d at 457; see also Martinez, 545 So. 2d at 1339 (holding quo warranto appropriate to test the governor’s power to call special sessions); Orange County v. City of Orlando, 327 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1976) (holding that the legality of city’s actions regarding annexation ordinances can be inquired into through quo warranto). In this case, the Secretary has approved the Compact and, absent an immediate judicial resolution, it will be given…1 / 2
-
Elvin L. Martinez v. Martinez, 545 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1989)…o. 2d 532 (Fla.1982) (quo warranto issued because public defender did not have authority to file class action on behalf of juveniles in federal court), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 823, 104 S.Ct. 90, 78 L.Ed.2d 97 (1983); Orange County v. City of Orlando, 327 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1976) (legality of city’s actions regarding annexation ordinances can be inquired into through quo warranto); Austin v. State ex rel. Christian, 310 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1975) (power and authority of state attorney should be tested by quo warranto).…
-
SCA Servs. OF Fla., Inc. v. City OF Tallahassee, 418 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…are located seeking review by certio-rari. In any action instituted pursuant to this section, the complainant, should he prevail, shall be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. . Appellant has relied on Orange County v. City of Orlando, 327 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1976) for its authority to seek review by a means other than as provided for in Chapter 171. In that case the Florida Supreme Court stated that upon the Attorney General’s refusal to challenge a municipal annexation by means of quo warranto, 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
- Town OF Mangonia Park v. Homan, 118 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- City OF Orlando v. Orange Cnty., 309 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Caldwell v. Losche, 108 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Smith v. Ayres, 174 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1965)