STATE EX REL. ROBERT BROWN
v.
THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER B. ARNOLD, AND COMMISSIONERS WALTER PETERSON, R. L. GOODWIN, J. W. SNEAD, R. L. GRIFFIN AND WILLIAM T. MCILWAIN, JR., AS CITY MANAGER, AND C. F. TYSON, CHIEF OF POLICE
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 affirmed a lower court's decision to quash an alternative writ of mandamus and dismiss the petition, finding no errors in the record. The relator declined to amend their petition further after the motion to quash was granted.
No, the lower court did not err. The Florida Supreme Court found no errors in the record.
“This case is before us upon a writ of error addressed to an order of the lower court granting a motion to quash the amended alternative writ of mandamus, and, the relator declining to amend further, dismissing the petition for the writ of mandamus and rendering judgment in favor of the respondents and against the relator.”
Describes the procedural posture of the case and the lower court's actions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, to which the respondents filed a motion to quash the amended alternative writ. The relator declin…
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 Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us upon a writ of error addressed to an order of the lower court granting a motion to quash the amended alternative writ of mandamus, *504and, the relator declining to amend further, dismissing the petition for the writ of mandamus and rendering judgment in favor of the respondents and against the relator. After due consideration of the record and the briefs and oral argument of counsel for the respective parties, we find no error in the record and it is considered and adjudged by the Court that the judgment of the circuit court be and the same is hereby—
Affirmed.
'Whitfield, P. J., Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Buford and Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.