L. C. WILLIAMSON, MAYOR OF WHITE SPRINGS, ET AL.,
v.
STATE, EX REL. MRS. ELLA NEILL
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 addressed whether a six-member town council could change an established policy by a tie vote. The Court held that discontinuing a street light (an affirmative change from the status quo) requires a majority vote of council members, not merely a failure to reject a committee recommendation by tie vote.
A town council of six members cannot effect an affirmative change to the status quo (such as discontinuing an established street light) by a tie vote. Because only three of six members voted to leave the street light undisturbed, the matter remained unfinished business before the council and must be reconvened for proper consideration.
“whether or not a town council, consisting of six members can change the status quo of any matter or thing within the council's jurisdiction, except by a majority vote of its members”
Articulates the central legal issue: whether affirmative changes require a true majority vote
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of White Springs had maintained a street light near the relator's home for many years. The city council's water and light committee recommend…
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.
Peremptory writ of mandamus was awarded to relator to require the Town Council of the *841Town of White Springs to be reconvened" to consider the proposition of discontinuing a street light that had been ordered dispensed with, pursuant to a tie voté Of the city-council on a motion made to reject the report of the city council’s water and light committee recommending the discontinuance of an arc light that for many years had been maintained near relator’s home.
Section 17 of Chapter 5368, Acts of 1903 (the Charter of White Springs), provides for a city council of six members elected for a term of two years. The proposition of law Sought to be presented by this writ of error is whether or not a town council, consisting of six members can change the status quo of any matter or thing within the council’s jurisdiction, except by a majority vote of its members, or in other words, whether an act of the council concurred in by only three of its total of six members, can be given effect as a lawful act of the council, although declared by the president of the council to "have been carried by reason of the failure by a.tie vote to reject a committee report which, if adopted, would amount to the Council’s affirmative act.
Our conclusion is that the real question in issue in the council’s proceedings was the ultimate discontinuance'of a street light which had once been lawfully established by the city council’s affirmative act. This is so despite the fact that the proposition voted on by the council was the motion to reject the'report of the- wáter and light committee,-recommending that the street light be discontinued, but which recommendation was subject to affirmative adoption by the city council in order to become effective.
Our fiirther conclusion is that the vote of three members of the total of six members of the City Council of White Springs in- favor of leaving the status quo of the street light undisturbed, left the matter voted on a matter of unfinished *842business before the city council which the court below properly required to be reinstated as such by its peremptory writ of mandamus. However, the court below erred in issuing its peremptory writ in terms' broader than this, and to that extent the judgment here attacked is erroneous and should be reversed, with directions to allow an appropriate amendment to the alternative writ and issue a peremptory writ in accordance therewith.
Reversed with directions, costs to be assessed in equal proportions against each of the parties to this writ of, error.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown arid Buford, J. J., concur.
Ellis, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bd. OF Trs. OF the Miami Beach Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Bornstein, 307 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…condition and his eligibility for benefits after a hearing is conducted. See Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States ex rel. Humboldt Steamship Co., 224 U.S. 474, 32 S.Ct. 556, 56 L.Ed. 849 (1912). Compare Williamson v. State ex rel. Neill, 112 Fla. 840, 151 So. 51 (1933). We therefore affirm. We do not by this holding determine that appellant’s petition makes a prima fa-cie case for compensation but simply that the trial court did not err in determining that the petitioner was entitled to a heari…