STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. J. CALVIN ODOM AND CLYDE M. NORTHRUP
v.
TOWN OF SOUTH FLOMATON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
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 trial court's decision denying a writ of mandamus sought by an appellant to compel a town to issue a license to sell whiskey. The appellant alleged a conspiracy to form the town to circumvent distance restrictions from a church, and that subsequent town ordinances arbitrarily excluded him.
No, the trial court did not err in finding that the evidence did not sustain the alternative writ. The appellate court could not say positively that the trial judge erred in weighing the evidence or in applying the law to the facts.
“We have had the benefit of an able presentation of this case and have carefully studied the record.”
Indicates the appellate court's thorough review of the case materials.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought a writ of mandamus to force the Town of South Flomaton to issue a license to sell whiskey. The appellant alleged that the town wa…
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 Application Of Law To Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant procured a writ of mandamus to coerce the Town of South Flomaton to issue him a license to sell whiskey. The substance of the allegations is that one Rufus Odom conspired with others to cause the named town to be formed for the purpose of enabling him to operate a whiskey store within less than 2500 feet of a church; that in furtherance of the conspiracy, when the town was formed, the town officials passed certain ordinances regulating the location of other whiskey stores — the effect of which arbitrarily excludes appellant.
Answer was filed joining issue on the charges and testimony was taken. The trial judge found that the evidence did not sustain the alternative writ and from that relator appeals.
*835We have had the benefit of an able presentation of this case and have carefully studied the record. It reveals many earmarks which might lead to another conclusion; yet when we place ourselves in the trial judge’s position, as nearly as it is possible for us to do, and have read the evidence as he heard the witness testify, we cannot say positively that he erred in weighing the evidence. Neither can we see that he misinterpreted the law or applied an erroneous rule of law to the facts of the case. For these reasons the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD, BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.