Platt v. Ross

150 So. 716, 112 Fla. 596, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2317
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 9, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 150 So. 716 (Platt v. Ross) 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.

Bluebook
Platt v. Ross, 150 So. 716, 112 Fla. 596, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2317 (Fla. 1933).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case the order of the Circuit Court denying a temporary injunction and granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complainant’s bill of complaint, as amended, is reversed on authority of State ex rel. Landis v. Tedder, 106 Fla. 140, 143 Sou. Rep. 148, wherein it is said:

“Authority for recall of officer must rest on substantial compliance with statutory provisions authorizing recall.”

The bill of complaint in this case, as amended, sets up sufficient facts, if proved,, to show that the recall proceedings attempted to be carried out against the complainant, Harry E. Platt, one of the City Commissioners of the City of Miami, do not rest on substantial compliance with Sections 12 and 12-A of Chapter 10847, Acts of 1925, Laws of Florida, thé City Charter of Miami, in that, among other things, the petition blanks for the proposed removal were *597 not on printed forms furnished as required by the statute,- and that in other particulars the statute was not substantially' complied with. The allegations of the bill, if established by proofs, entitle the complainant to an injunction against the proposed recall proceedings about to be launched against the complainant by action of the defendant City Clerk, s'o there-is equity in the,bill. Hence the motion to dismiss same should have been overruled and temporary injunction granted pending the final hearing.

The orders appealed from are reversed with directions to overrule the motion to dismiss the amended bill of complaint, grant the temporary injunction applied for, permit an answer to be filed and have such further proceedings as may be according to equity practice and not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed with directions.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, J., not participating.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Palmer v. Hart
655 P.2d 965 (Montana Supreme Court, 1982)
Richard v. Tomlinson
49 So. 2d 798 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1951)
Dubose v. Kelly
181 So. 11 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 So. 716, 112 Fla. 596, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/platt-v-ross-fla-1933.