EX PARTE: MRS. INGA S. HANSEN, AN ADJUDGED INCOMPETENT, STATE EX REL. LLOYD T. EVERETT
v.
THE HONORABLE GEORGE WILLIAM JACKSON, AS JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR VOLUSIA COUNTY
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.
A mandamus petition challenging a circuit judge's handling of a guardianship matter was denied. The court held that the judge had properly performed his duties as instructed in a prior appeal and that the petitioner was attempting an improper intervention after the prior case had concluded.
The court granted the motion to quash the mandamus petition, holding that the circuit judge had properly performed his duties as instructed in a prior appellate decision and that no fraud, neglect of duty, or overreaching was shown. The requested actions were matters within the sound discretion of the circuit judge.
“all the things attempted are matters purely in the sound discretion of respondent as Circuit Judge and County Judge of Volusia County, against neither of whom fraud, neglect of duty, or overreaching is charged”
Establishes that mandamus relief is unavailable for discretionary judicial actions absent showing of fraud or neglect
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceInga S. Hansen was an adjudged incompetent person with a guardian. Lloyd T. Everett, on behalf of Mrs. Hansen, sought mandamus relief against the circ…
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 Adjudication Of Incompetency cases and more on FLexlaw
-Alternative writ of mandamus was issued by this Court directed to respondent commanding him (1) to conduct an inquiry into the guardianship of Inga S. Plansen, an insane person (2) to permit Mrs. Hansen to testify privately at such hearing, (3) consider the matter of removing the guardian of Mrs. Hansen, (4) settling of account between Mrs. Plansen and her guardian, (5) that respondent be required to malee his decision in writing and hold the hearing to suit convenience of relator.
There is a motion to quash and a return to the alternative writ. All the pleadings in the cause have been examined and it appears that relator is attempting something in the nature of an intervention in Ex Parte Hansen, 120 Fla. 333, 162 So. 715, after the opinion in said cause has gone down *805and the chancellor performed the duties required of him. It appears further that all the things attempted are matters purely in the sound discretion of respondent as Circuit Judge and County Judge of Volusia County, against neither of whom fraud, neglect of duty, or overreaching is charged. In the opinion last cited, the circuit judge was instructed how to proceed in this matter. He has proceeded to perform his duty as instructed and no error is shown to have been committed. If the estate of Inga S. Hansen is not being properly administered, that fact should be brought to the attention of respondent in a proper proceeding. He has full power to hear and consider the complaint and his is the proper forum in which to litigate such matters.
The motion to quash is granted but without prejudice to apply to the circuit court if desired.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Buford and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur.
Justices Brown and Ti-iomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1967)…on may entirely destroy their sinister influence, in such event, a new trial should be awarded, regardless of the want of objection or exception.” (Emphasis added.) See Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318, 113 So. 689; Livingston v. State, 140 Fla. 749, 192 So. 327; and Fast v. State, Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 210. Thus, it is seen that to invoke the exception the remark must be of “such character” that it is both “obviously prejudicial” and ineradicable from the minds of the jury. Previous decisions of this…
-
Peel v. State, 154 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…ide by an appellate court because of such remarks unless objection is made at the time of their [*916] utterance and a ruling of the court secured thereon. See Fouts v. State, 1931, 101 Fla. 1248, 133 So. 81; Livingston v. State, 1939, 140 Fla. 749, 192 So. 327; Higginbotham v. State, 1944, 155 Fla. 274, 19 So. 2d 829; and Tillman v. State, Fla.1950, 44 So. 2d 644. We do not conclude that such remarks were so obviously prejudicial and of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction could have removed…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Fred L. Stringer v. Lee, 147 Fla. 37 (Fla. 1941)…59; State ex rel. Select Tenures, Inc., v. Raulerson, 129 Fla. 346, 176 So. 270. This Court will take judicial notice of the public records of commissions appearing on file in the office of Secretary of State. See Livingston v. State, 140 Fla. 749, 192 So. 327; State ex rel. Gibbs v. Couch, 139 Fla. 353, 190 So. 723; Conyers v. State ex rel. Conroy, 98 Fla. 417, 123 So. 817. The records appearing in the office of Secretary of State disclose that the term of office of circuit judge so held by the Honorable…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex Parte: Inga S. Hansen, 120 Fla. 333 (Fla. 1935)