JAMES H. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLOYD T. CHRISTIAN, APPELLEE
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.
Williams, Secretary of Florida's Department of Administration, appealed a decision regarding whether Christian forfeited his retirement benefits under state law. The case involves statutory interpretation of Florida's anti-corruption and public pension forfeiture statutes.
The court addressed whether Christian's conduct violated Florida's anti-corruption statutes and whether forfeiture of retirement benefits was warranted under the applicable statutory provisions governing pension forfeiture for public employees.
[1] A public officer's acceptance of unauthorized compensation for the performance or nonperformance of official duties is unlawful.
[2] A public officer's acceptance of unauthorized compensation for official duties is unlawful only if done "corruptly" under the amended statute.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is unlawful for any public officer, agent, servant or employee to request, solicit, exact or accept any reward, compensation, or other remuneration, other than those provided by law, from any person whatsoever for the past, present or future performance, nonperformance or violation of any act, rule or regulation that may be or may have been incumbent upon such public officer, agent, servant or employee to administer, respect, perform, execute or have executed”
Establishes the core statutory prohibition against unlawful compensation to public officers under Florida Statute 838.06
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristian was a public employee whose employment was terminated. A dispute arose concerning whether Christian violated Florida Statute 838.06 regardin…
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 Corrupt Motive cases and more on FLexlaw
. Florida Statute 838.06 (1973) provides: “Unlawful for officers to accept unauthorized compensation for performance or nonperformance of duty. It is unlawful for any public officer, agent, servant or employee to request, solicit, exact or accept any reward, compensation, or other remuneration, other than those provided by law, from any person whatsoever for the past, present or future performance, nonperformance or violation of any act, rule or ’ regulation that may be or may have been incumbent upon such public officer, agent, servant or employee to administer, respect, perform, execute or have executed; provided that nothing herein shall be construed so as to preclude a sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, deputy constable, city marshal or policeman from accepting rewards or remuneration for services performed in apprehending any criminal.” Amended in 1974 (Ch. 74-383, Laws of Florida) specifically modifying the proscribed acts with the word “corruptly”. Now Section 838.016, Florida Statutes (1975). . Florida Statute 121.091(5)(f) (1973) provides: “Any member who is found guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction of committing, aiding, or abetting any embezzlement or theft from his employer or bribery in connection the employment, committed prior to retirement, or any member whose employment is terminated by reason of his admitted commitment, aiding or abetting of an embezzlement or theft from his employer or such bribery shall forfeit all rights and benefits under this chapter except the return of his accumulated contributions as of his date of termination.” Amended in 1975 providing forfeiture of retirement benefits by any member found guilty of any felony specified by Chapter 838, Florida Statutes. Chapter 75-86, Laws of Florida. . Austin also stated in his affidavit: “Thus, while I plainly had no authority to bind the State retirement system and made no representations at any time that I could or would personally insure that FLOYD T. CHRISTIAN would receive his pension benefits, such a result was impliedly assured by our mutual good faith construction of Section 121.09[l](5)(f), F.S. ” . Nell v. State, 277 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973). . Predecessor of Section 838.06, F.S. (1973). . Richards v. State, 144 Fla. 177, 197 So. 772 (1940). . Smith v. State, 253 So. 2d 465 (1 Fla.App. 1971). . Tamiami Trail Tours v. Lee, 142 Fla. 68, 194 So. 305 (1940). . In State v. Greene, 247 So. 2d 102 (3 Fla.App. 1971), the Third District Court of Appeal correctly observed: “This statute [838.06] is not the typical bribery statute . . . . See notes (1) and (2) supra. . Ireland v. Thomas, 324 So. 2d 146 (1 Fla.App. 1975); 37 C.J.S. Forfeitures § 4.b.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colon Bernard Mulligan v. City OF Hollywood, 871 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…is context suggests that in doubtful cases the courts will construe ambiguous statutes, or even clear forfeiture provisions resting on uncertain authority, against any loss and in favor of an owner’s retention of property. See Williams v. Christian, 335 So. 2d 358, 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (“Statutes imposing forfeiture will be strictly construed in a manner such as to avoid the forfeiture and will be liberally construed so as to avoid and relieve from forfeiture.”). Under this strict construction, in the abse…
-
Chuck v. City OF Homestead Police Dep't & Vill. of Pinecrest, 888 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…tain cases, strict construction means that the courts will construe ambiguous statutes, or even clear forfeiture provisions resting on uncertain authority, against any loss and in favor of an owner’s retention of property. See Williams v. Christian, 335 So. 2d 358, 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (“Statutes imposing forfeiture will be strictly construed in a manner such as to avoid the forfeiture and will be liberally construed so as to avoid and relieve from forfeiture.”). The Florida Supreme Court has stated that…
-
Garrett v. State, 508 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…capacity of the person to whom the bribe is offered; (2) the offering of a thing of value; and (3) the intent to influence the official action of the person to whom the bribe is offered. Nell v. State, 277 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1973); Williams v. Christian, 335 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The unlawful compensation charge Garrett was convicted of is defined as follows: It is unlawful for any person corruptly to give ... to any public servant ... any pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law for the past,…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Honorable T. Edward Austin v. State of Fla. ex rel. Floyd T. Christian, 310 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1975)
- Nell v. State, 277 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973)
- Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Lee, 142 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1940)
- Smith v. State, 253 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Richards v. State, 144 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1940)
- The Honorable John A. Rudd & the Honorable Ben C. Willis v. State of Fla. ex rel. Floyd T. Christian, 310 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Greene, 247 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Ireland v. Thomas, 324 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)