VIRGINIA WOOD, ELEANOR SCRIBNER, CHIEF CLERK, RUTH COLLINS, BARBARA PICHEL, CONCETTE PELLICCIATTI, THERYL MILLINGTON, MARIE VENTO, DOROTHY O'DELL, MARJORIE BROWN, EDNA MILLER, MAY LOU GODWIN, MABEL DAVIS, HAZEL PIATT, MARIE WINKELSPECHT, MARY BRENNAN, BETTY REIF, TILLIE BRIDEN, AS CONSTITUTING THE INSPECTORS OF ELECTION AND CANVASSING BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, AND GEORGE B. SLICK, APPELLANTS,
v.
DANIEL D. DIEFENBACH, 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.
In an election contest for Mayor of North Miami Beach, the lower court found that numerous absentee ballots cast for the defendant were illegal due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, and determined the incumbent plaintiff was the lawful winner. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that compliance with absentee voting statutory requirements is mandatory.
Compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting is mandatory, and failure to comply is fatal to the ballot cast. The lower court's decree determining Diefenbach as the lawful winner was therefore proper.
“compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting were mandatory and that the failure to so require was fatal to the ballot cast”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that statutory absentee voting requirements are mandatory, not directory, and non-compliance voids the ballot
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt the April 19, 1955 general election for Mayor of North Miami Beach, plaintiff Diefenbach received 1,161 votes (19 by absentee ballot) and defendant…
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 Election Contest cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Chief Justice.
In an election contest over the office of Mayor of the City of North Miami Beach, the lower court held on final hearing that “the testimony taken by and before the Court, upon consideration whereof, the Court finds that at the general election held in the City of North Miami Beach on April 19, 1955, the plaintiff Daniel D. Diefenbach received 1161 votes and the defendant George B. Slick received 1193 votes, and that out of said number of votes 19 absentee ballots were cast for the plaintiff and 81 absentee ballots were cast for the defendant Slick; that a sufficient number of absentee ballots, as appears from the record of the application for such ballots and the ballots which were introduced as evidence in this cause, to alter the result of said election were illegal and null and void in that the applications for such absentee ballots either were not made at all or were not executed in the manner required by law”, and entered an appropriate decree determining that Daniel D. Diefenbach, the incumbent, was lawfully elected as Mayor of said City at the general election on April 19, 1955. It is conceded here that in many instances either applications for the ballots were not made or, if made, such applications were either undated, lacked witnesses or notarial seal, failed to specify a reason for the issuance of the ballot or were not returned within the time provided by law. See Section 101.62 F.S.1951, F.S.A.
The facts in this case are strikingly similar to those which were developed in Griffin v. Knoth, Fla.1952, 67 So. 2d 431. In that case we held that compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting were mandatory and that the failure to so require was fatal to the ballot cast. We held to like effect in Jolley v. Whatley, Fla. 1952, 60 So. 2d 762. On the authority of these cases the final decree appealed from is
Affirmed.
TERRELL, THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boardman v. Esteva, 323 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1975)…simply required the execution of an oath in substantially the same form prescribed therein. This part of the statute remains unchanged. . Jolley v. Whatley, 60 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1952); Griffith v. Knoth, 67 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1953); Wood v. Diefenbach, 81 So. 2d 777 (Fla.1955); Parra v. Harvey, 89 So. 2d 870 (Fla.1956); McDonald v. Miller, 90 So. 2d 124 (Fla.1956). . In Titus, we cited 9 R.C.L. § 102, pp. 1093-1095, as well as Hutchins, for support of the exception we mention here. Although the cited paragraph…1 / 2
-
Spradley v. Bailey, 292 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…g the method to be followed in applying for and casting absentee ballots and therefore ruled that such ballots could not be counted. That ruling is in accord with the holdings in Frink v. State, 160 Fla. 394, 35 So. 2d 10 (1948); Wood v. Diefenbach, 81 So. 2d 777 (Fla.1955); Parra v. Harvey, supra, and McDonald v. Miller, 90 So. 2d 124 (Fla.1956). Among the numerous witnesses who gave testimony was one Coretta Bur-ney. As a campaign worker in behalf of some of the candidates in the primary election, she con…1 / 2
-
Parra v. Harvey, 89 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1956)…ts obtained on defective applications, should have been discarded. Since the illegal absentee ballots were sufficient in number to alter the result, the election should be determined by the votes registered on the machines. Wood v. Diefenbach, Fla., 81 So. 2d 777; Griffin v. Knoth, supra; Rinehart v. State ex rel. Whitley, 145 Fla. 612, 200 So. 218. Doubtless the officials charged with supervising elections of the city should overhaul the forms théy have been using and in the future should adhere to the law…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Griffin v. Knoth, 67 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1953)