STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. JOHN W. KEARNEY, WILLIAM E. PARTINGTON, AND JOHN SIMMONS, APPELLANTS,
v.
BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, JOHN MCCALLUM, MONSO TATUM, JAMES L. DIXON, JEANNE GODDARD AND ANNE COX, APPELLEES
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.
Florida residents sought mandamus to compel the Volusia County Board of Public Instructions to re-establish school board residence districts with substantially equal numbers of qualified electors. The circuit court quashed the writ for insufficient factual allegations, and the appellate court affirmed the quashing but remanded for the relators to file an amended petition with adequate factual support.
The circuit court's quashing of the writ is affirmed solely on the ground that the petition and writ failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate noncompliance with the statutory provision, but this affirmance does not constitute approval or disapproval of the Board's districting plan. The case is remanded to allow the relators a reasonable opportunity to file an amended petition with adequate factual support.
“The order is affirmed to the extent that it quashes the writ, on the sole ground that the said writ and the relators' petition on which it was based fail to set forth sufficient facts to show a noncompliance with the provision quoted”
Establishes that the affirmance is limited to the pleading deficiency and does not address the merits of the Board's districting plan.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relators sought a writ of mandamus requiring the Board of Public Instructions of Volusia County to re-establish five board member residence distri…
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 Assignments Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
The appealed-from order of the Circuit Court for Volusia County quashed an amended alternative writ of mandamus commanding the Board of Public Instructions of said county to re-establish the five board member residence district in accordance with Section 230.061, Florida Statutes, 1957, F.S.A., which requires such re-establishment “so as to place in each district, as nearly as practicable, the same number of qualified electors,” or show cause why it refused so to do. The order is affirmed to the extent that it quashes the writ, on the sole ground that the said writ and the relators’ petition on which it was based fail to set forth sufficient facts to show a noncompliance with the provision quoted, but our holding is not to be construed as an approval or a disapproval of the districting plan adopted by the Board. The cause is remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to reinstate the cause and grant to the relators a reasonable time within which to file an amended petition for a further amended alternative writ of mandamus.
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.
WIGGINTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree to that part of the majority opinion concurred in by Judges STURGIS and CARROLL, which affirms the trial court’s order quashing appellant’s amended alternative writ of mandamus. The assignments of error on this appeal are confined solely and exclusively to the propriety of the mentioned order. The validity of the order quashing the amended alternative writ is the only issue before us for decision.
I am unable to agree with that part of the majority opinion which remands this cause with directions that it be reinstated on the docket and leave be granted relators to file an amended petition for a further amended alternative writ of mandamus. My reasons for disagreement are manifold and substantial.
The record reveals that no motion or request was made to the trial judge for leave to file a further amended petition for writ following the entry of the quashal order from which this appeal is taken. The trial judge was therefore given no opportunity to rule upon such a request and did not do so. To remand a cause for reinstatement and further proceedings constitutes a reversal on an issue never presented to nor ruled upon by the trial court. Such action by an appellate court is not only improper but unjustified. Fur*793thermore, appellants have not assigned as error the refusal of the trial judge to permit the filing of a further amended petition for writ.' Under the rules of practice governing appellate procedure cases are heard only on assignments of error, briefs and appendices.1 Neither in their brief filed in this cause nor in oral argument before the court have appellants requested that this cause be reinstated on the trial court docket and they be granted leave to further amend. They make no suggestion that the trial judge refused them leave to amend, or that such failure constituted an abuse of discretion.
The tendency manifest in the majority opinion toward gratuitous paternalism in the administration of justice at the appellate court level creates confusion and uncertainty among the trial judges and lawyers alike. Such practice should be avoided.
WIGGINTON, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree to that part of the majority opinion concurred in by Judges STURGIS and CARROLL, which affirms the trial court’s order quashing appellant’s amended alternative writ of mandamus. The assignments of error on this appeal are confined solely and exclusively to the propriety of the mentioned order. The validity of the order quashing the amended alternative writ is the only issue before us for decision.
I am unable to agree with that part of the majority opinion which remands this cause with directions that it be reinstated on the docket and leave be granted relators to file an amended petition for a further amended alternative writ of mandamus. My reasons for disagreement are manifold and substantial.
The record reveals that no motion or request was made to the trial judge for leave to file a further amended petition for writ following the entry of the quashal order from which this appeal is taken. The trial judge was therefore given no opportunity to rule upon such a request and did not do so. To remand a cause for reinstatement and further proceedings constitutes a reversal on an issue never presented to nor ruled upon by the trial court. Such action by an appellate court is not only improper but unjustified. Fur thermore, appellants have not assigned as error the refusal of the trial judge to permit the filing of a further amended petition for writ.' Under the rules of practice governing appellate procedure cases are heard only on assignments of error, briefs and appendices.1 Neither in their brief filed in this cause nor in oral argument before the court have appellants requested that this cause be reinstated on the trial court docket and they be granted leave to further amend. They make no suggestion that the trial judge refused them leave to amend, or that such failure constituted an abuse of discretion.
The tendency manifest in the majority opinion toward gratuitous paternalism in the administration of justice at the appellate court level creates confusion and uncertainty among the trial judges and lawyers alike. Such practice should be avoided.
. Rule 8.3, F. JR., 31 F.S.A.