STATE EX REL. GEORGE COUPER GIBBS, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
v.
FRANK V. B. COUCH, ROBERT K. MILLER, GORDON MONTGOMERY, JOHN LATOUR, AND RALPH W. RICHARDS
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 denied a motion to stay enforcement of a writ of ouster against five city commissioners pending appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that because the case involved only the interpretation of state law and state constitutional provisions, federal review was unlikely and the balance of convenience did not warrant suspension of the judgment.
The motion to stay was denied. The court held that suspension of the judgment was not warranted because the case involved only the interpretation of state law and state constitutional provisions on which the Florida Supreme Court's decision was final, and no question was presented that the U.S. Supreme Court would likely review.
“if the case was one that would likely be reviewed by the Federal Court on certiorari or one in which the balance of convenience requires a suspension of this Court's decree and a withholding of its mandate, the stay order should be granted”
Establishes the legal standard for granting stay orders pending federal review, from Williams v. Keys
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFive individuals held the office of City Commissioner of Daytona Beach. A writ of ouster was issued against them on August 12, 1939. The respondents m…
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 Balance Of Convenience cases and more on FLexlaw
Writ of ouster was issued in this cause August 12, 1939. Respondents move that the enforcement of said writ be suspended for sixty days to enable them to apply to the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certiorari to review the judgment of this Court on which the writ of ouster was predicated.
*710. As support for their motion, they rely on decisions of this Court to the effect that one holding public office has a property right therein which he cannot be deprived of without due process of law, that the writ and judgment complained of, if enforced, will eject them from the office of City Commissioner of Daytona Beach without due process, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
In Williams v. Keys, 135 Fla. 769, 186 So. 266, the circumstances under which stay orders of the class here sought were fully reviewed and we there held that if the case was one that would likely be reviewed by the Federal Court on certiorari or one in which the balance of convenience requires a suspension of this Court’s decree and a withholding ■of its mandate, the stay order should be granted.
The' ultimate question involved in this case was the interpretation of House Bill 1974, Acts of 1939, as affected' by Section 8, Article VIII, Constitution of Florida. Respondents took office with knowledge of this provision of the State Constitution and with knowledge of the fact that it had been previously and repeatedly construed to authorize the very thing they complain of. In fine, the question is ■one .governed by State law, affected by State procedure, on which the decision of this Court is final. The decision complained of dealt exclusively with the interpretation and scope of Section 8, Article 'VIII, of the State Constitution rather than its validity, the latter not being considered.
P'or this and other reasons, the balance of convenience does not require the suspension of our judgment and no question is presented that the Federal Supreme Court would likely review, so the motion for stay is denied on authority of Williams v. Keys, supra. See also McCall v. State, 136 Fla. 343, 186 So. 667.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami Beach v. State of Fla. ex rel. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 109 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…illiams v. Keyes, 135 Fla. 769, 186 So. 250, 266-269, where the Supreme Court of Florida dealt with a motion relating to a stay of its own decision, pending certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. See also State ex rel. Gibbs v. Couch, 139 Fla. 709, 190 So. 818, and Magnum Import Co. v. Coty, 1923, 262 U.S. 159, 43 S.Ct. 531, 67 L.Ed. 922. In dealing with that problem in those cases the courts were acting under a federal statute which permitted the stay to be granted or withheld within the sou…
Authorities Cited
- McCall v. State, 136 Fla. 343 (Fla. 1939)
- Williams v. Keyes, 135 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1938)