Driver v. Adams
This text of 196 So. 2d 916 (Driver v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
By their petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioners question the validity of various provisions of Florida’s so-called “political party loyalty oath” prescribed by Section 99.021(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
In effect we are asked to recede from our prior decisions in Mairs v. Peters, Fla., 52 So.2d 793 and Crowells v. Petersen, Fla., 118 So.2d 539. Petitioners insist that the rule of these cases has been superseded by principles announced in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 and Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 87 S.Ct. 339, 17 L.Ed.2d 235. We find the federal cases inapposite. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any justification for overruling the Florida cases cited. On the authority of those cases, the alternative writ of mandamus is quashed and the petition dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
196 So. 2d 916, 1967 Fla. LEXIS 3989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driver-v-adams-fla-1967.