State Ex Rel. Drane v. Robles

143 So. 438, 106 Fla. 940
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 7, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 So. 438 (State Ex Rel. Drane v. Robles) 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
State Ex Rel. Drane v. Robles, 143 So. 438, 106 Fla. 940 (Fla. 1932).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The Court affirmed the judgment ordering a peremptory writ. Mandate was issued requiring it to be enforced. After the mandate was lodged in the Court below the Circuit Judge ordered the peremptory writ to be amended and a portion of it quashed. The relator applied here for a writ of mandamus against the Circuit Judge to require him to comply with the mandate as issued. Eespondent Judge made return, setting up that in his opinion the execution of the peremptory writ would be futile and asking permission to quash a portion of the same.

A majority of the Court are of the opinion that the motion to recall the mandate should not be granted because a recall of the mandate without a reversal of the judgment of affirmance heretofore entered by this Court, would be useless and futile. See Brown vs. State, 29 Fla. 494. The denial of the motion to recall the mandate necessarily results in a granting of a motion for a peremptory writ to the Circuit Judge to require compliance with the mandate.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur. Brown, J., dissents.

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

Related

Vining v. American Bakeries Co.
163 So. 519 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 So. 438, 106 Fla. 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-drane-v-robles-fla-1932.