FREEMON COLLINS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND HESTER DOZER, AS CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, 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.
The court held that the allegations in the recall affidavits lacked a sufficient foundation and relation to the performance of the commissioners' duties.
Appellants sought a declaratory decree and injunction against recall proceedings based on affidavits against city commissioners. The city charter requ…
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 Declaratory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants seek review of a decree for injunction which enjoined the city clerk from instituting further proceedings based on recall affidavits against Opa-Locka City Commissioners Anderson and Heacock, parties below for alleged discrimination against Blacks. The decree was entered after hearing testimony.
The complaint sought a declaratory decree as to the sufficiency, under the city charter, of the grounds stated in the affidavits for two recall petitions and injunc-tive relief against holding any special recall election. Plaintiffs were the city and the city clerk; defendants were the two city commissioners and the signers of the recall affidavits.
The language of the affidavits is at issue in this case, but it would serve no useful purpose to reproduce it here.
The charter and ordinance provisions, certified copies of which are included in the record, require that the affidavit contain “a statement of grounds for removal,” and “This affidavit must state that the charges are true and are made subject to the laws of perjury as defined in Florida Statutes, Chapter 837.” Opa-Locka Code, § 144 (Charter, Art. XI).
As to both commissioners, the grounds for recall must have some real foundation or relation to the performance of the duties of a commissioner. Joyner v. Shuman, Fla.App.1959, 116 So.2d 472; Richard v. Tomlinson, Fla.1951, 49 So.2d 798; and see Sproat v. Arnau, Fla.1968, 213 So.2d 692. The allegations herein do not meet that standard. Furthermore, we note that certain of the allegations' of misconduct are ambiguous. Therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taines v. Galvin, 279 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1973)…must be more than “beliefs” or “ideas”; they must be charges of specific misdeeds which have some relationship to the councilman’s performance of the duties of his office. Richard v. Tomlinson, 49 So. 2d 798 (Fla.1951); Collins v. City of Opa-Locka, 251 So. 2d 709 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1971); Piver v. Stallman, 198 So. 2d [*11] 859 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1967); Tolar v. Johns, 147 So. 2d 196 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1962); Hines v. Dozer, 134 So. 2d 548 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1961); Joyner v. Shuman, 116 So. 2d 472 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1959); Gordon v.…
-
Gordon v. Leatherman, 450 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1971)…recall, the Florida courts were justified in interpreting such language as necessitating that the reasons proffered “have some real foundation or relation to the performance of the duties” of the officer. Collins v. City of Opa-Locka, Fla. App.1971, 251 So. 2d 709. In essence, the courts were holding that a charter provision which requires an articulation of charges in a recall petition serves to establish a political system allowing an officer’s removal only upon a showing of cause. As the district court be…
Authorities Cited
- Richard v. Tomlinson, 49 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1951)
- Joyner v. Shuman, 116 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Sproat v. Arnau, 213 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1968)