THOMAS D. MATTHEWS AND SNEAD MATTHEWS, HIS WIFE,
v.
ED H. STANLEY AND J. HARRY SCHAD, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR ED H. STANLEY, AN INSANE PERSON
THOMAS D. MATTHEWS AND SNEAD MATTHEWS, HIS WIFE,
ED H. STANLEY AND J. HARRY SCHAD, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR ED H. STANLEY, AN INSANE PERSON
157 Fla. 223
Florida Supreme Court (1946)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 25 So. 2d 565
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
This cause is before the Court on Petition for Rehearing, and after a careful consideration of each ground thereof, the Court is of the view that the Petition should be denied upon authority of Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark, 153 Fla. 501, 15 So. (2nd) 175.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2005)…by its enforcement, State ex rel. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. State Board of Equalizers, 84 Fla. 592, 94 So. 681, 30 A.L.R. 362, or that his administration of the Act in question will require the expenditure of public funds, Steele v. Freel, 157 Fla. 223, 25 So. 2d 501. Barr, 70 So. 2d at 350 (emphasis added). And, for the very same reasons the court in Barr did not “feel bound by the dictum” in King or Cone that may seem contrary to this rule, I believe we are not bound to and should expressly dis…
-
Arnold v. Keither L. Shumpert, 217 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1968)…take out general liability insurance. This is a plausible argument. However, “the right and authority of a ministerial officer to challenge any Act providing for disbursement of public funds is an exception to the above-cited rule,” Steele v. Freel, 157 Fla. 223, 25 So. 2d 501, 503 (1946); see Kaulakis v. Boyd, 138 So. 2d 505 (Fla.1962). Since the Commissioners would have to expend pub- [*120] lie funds to pay the insurance premiums, this special rule would appear to give them the necessary standing to ques…
-
Alfonsus D. Kaulakis v. Boyd, 138 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1962)…oceeding attack the validity of a law imposing duties on him is subject to the exception that such a law may be challenged where it involves the disbursement of public funds. State ex rel. Harrell v. Cone, 130 Fla. 158, 177 So. 854; Steele v. Freel, 157 Fla. 223, 25 So. 2d 501; City of Pensacola v. King, Fla., 47 So. 2d 317 and Barr v. Watts, Fla., 70 So. 2d 347. In the instant case a judgment rendered for the appellant would have required the ap-pellees to expend public funds in satisfaction of such judgme…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tomazin v. Gessner, 153 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1943)