Miller v. City of Casselberry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miller v. City of Casselberry

698 So. 2d 1386, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10871, 1997 WL 594084

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 19, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1710

StatusPublished

This text of 698 So. 2d 1386 (Miller v. City of Casselberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. City of Casselberry, 698 So. 2d 1386, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10871, 1997 WL 594084 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

GOSHORN, Judge.

This case involves the proper interpretation of an ambiguous provision of the City of Casselberry Code relating to the scheduling of a special election. The trial court found that the City’s scheduling of the election did not violate any provision of law and that no showing had been made of fraud, corruption, or gross abuse of discretion by the Cassel-berry City Commission. See Senior Citizens Protective League, Inc. v. McNayr, 132 So.2d 237, 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (“Within the permissible ... period prescribed by the time limitation [of the Dade County Charter], the Board of County Commissioners, in their discretion as the legislative body of the county, may set such election which may not be interfered with by the courts without a showing of fraud, corruption, gross abuse of dis-cretion_”).

We find the trial court’s interpretation to be both reasonable and logical when the Cas-selberry Code is considered as a whole and thus do not disturb the ruling on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GOSHORN, Judge.

This case involves the proper interpretation of an ambiguous provision of the City of Casselberry Code relating to the scheduling of a special election. The trial court found that the City’s scheduling of the election did not violate any provision of law and that no showing had been made of fraud, corruption, or gross abuse of discretion by the Cassel-berry City Commission. See Senior Citizens Protective League, Inc. v. McNayr, 132 So.2d 237, 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (“Within the permissible ... period prescribed by the time limitation [of the Dade County Charter], the Board of County Commissioners, in their discretion as the legislative body of the county, may set such election which may not be interfered with by the courts without a showing of fraud, corruption, gross abuse of dis-cretion_”).

We find the trial court’s interpretation to be both reasonable and logical when the Cas-selberry Code is considered as a whole and thus do not disturb the ruling on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 So. 2d 1386, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10871, 1997 WL 594084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-city-of-casselberry-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack