STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. EDWARD A. HALEY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN S. TAYLOR ET AL., COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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 a mandamus action challenging county commissioners' authority to hold a local option election on intoxicating liquors, finding the case moot because a constitutional amendment establishing statewide prohibition had been adopted after the suit was filed, rendering local option elections obsolete.
The writ of error was dismissed because the constitutional amendment establishing statewide prohibition rendered all questions in the case moot, as local option elections to determine whether intoxicating liquors could be sold in any county were entirely abrogated by the amendment.
“State wide prohibition has been established in this State, and that local option elections to determine whether the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited in any county thereof is' by said constitutional amendment entirely abrogated”
Establishes the legal basis for mootness—the constitutional amendment has eliminated local option elections entirely
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward A. Haley sought a writ of mandamus against Pinellas County Commissioners to prevent them from calling a local option election regarding the sal…
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 Supersedeas Bond Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— This cause involving an application by the plaintiff in error for a writ of Mandamus against the defendants in error as County Commissioners of Pinellas County to refrain from calling and holding a local option election and to strike from the petition for said election the names of divers persons on their request to withdraw therefrom, coming on for oral argument, and the court taking judicial notice of the fact that since the institution of this proceeding and since the writ of error therein to this court a constitutional amendment has been adopted at an election held by the people of the State by which State wide prohibition has been established in this State, and that local option elections to determine whether the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited in any county thereof is' by said constitutional amendment entirely abrogated, and that, therefore, all the questions involved involved in this writ of error have become moot questions the said writ of error is hereby dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff in error. The supersedeas order heretofore granted by a judge' of this court had no other effect than to supersede that feature of the judgment appealed from that dismissed the entire mandamus proceeding of the plaintiff in error, it did not re-instate the alternative writ of mandamus, nor did it have the effect of postponing, stopping or restraining the local option election as then proposed to be called and held. The Circuit Judge in fixing the conditions of the supersedeas bond to be given by the plaintiff in error prescribe conditions therefore that were not authorized or sanctioned by law, viz: that the plaintiff in error, who was the plaintiff in the court below, should pay all damages and costs including solicitors’ fees that the defendants in error might be put to in consequence of the suing out of the writ of error in the event the judgment below was either affirmed or the writ of error dismissed by the appellate court. These conditions of the bond are nugatory and unauthorized by law. The presumption is that the plaintiff in error who was the plaintiff below, had already paid all costs in the court below before suing out his writ of error, therefore his only further liability upon the dismissal of the writ of error here, are the costs taxable in this court.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DuBose v. Meister, 92 Fla. 995 (Fla. 1926)…tive order could be made by the County Judge revoking the same. The writ of error will be dismissed where no practical result could be attained by reviewing the questions therein contained. (Winburn v. Huey, 44 Fla. 739; 33 Sou. 248; St. v. Taylor, 77 Fla. 607; 82 Sou. 604). The writ of error is now dismissed. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.…
-
Gore v. News-Journal Corp., 146 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1941)…to the office and emoluments thereof. The two months’ salary at the rate of $225.00 per month, or a total sum of $450.00, and court costs in the two suits, were held recoverable but not attorney’s fees. In the case of State ex rel. Haley v. Taylor, 77 Fla. 607, 82 So. 604, the items of liability on a supersedeas bond were before this Court and it was held that court costs were collectible, but while the supersedeas order required the supersedeas bond to contain a condition that “the plaintiff in error sho…