Joughin v. Parks
| Decision Date | 25 August 1932 |
| Citation | 107 Fla. 833,143 So. 306 |
| Parties | JOUGHIN, Sheriff v. PARKS, Circuit Judge, et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Application for writ of prohibition by R. T. Joughin, as Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Fla., and individually, against L. L Parks, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County and others. On motion for rehearing and an order vacating rule nisi.
Order in accordance with opinion.
COUNSEL Chas. F. Blake, Frank T. Phillips, Mabry Reaves & White, and R. J. Duff, all of Tampa, for petitioner.
R. C Brown, Curtis L. Sparkman, J. W. Cone, and Wm. C. Pierce, all of Tampa, for respondents.
Rule nisi in prohibition was issued in this case on June 27, 1932 (Fla.) 143 So. 145, returnable July 10, 1932. The primary election involved was held on June 28, 1932, so the object of the original equity suit could not be accomplished, should a rehearing be granted and the order awarding the rule nisi be vacated as prayed by the respondents.
But the questions here involved are public questions of great public concern, and, although the equity case itself may now be regarded as moot, this court is committed to the doctrine that in extraordinary cases of public interest the case, though subject to dismissal as moot, may nevertheless be retained on the docket and decided on its merits, in order to dispose of the public questions involved, for the benefit of the bench and bar in future cases of like nature. See Southern Telephone & Construction Co. Case, 65 Fla. 67, 61 So. 119, where it was said that a case like this may be retained 'for the determination of questions properly presented involving the duties and authority of public officials that are of general interest to the public,' though the 'litigation may not be effective in all respects because of circumstances arising' after this court has first acquired jurisdiction in the matter.
The legal theory upon which the rule nisi was granted by a majority of the five justices present when the application for it was presented is stated in the per curiam opinion filed at the time. Whether that statement should be adhered to or modified is still open for consideration on the merits of the case upon an application for a writ of prohibition absolute, if the case is retained for further consideration.
What if any, jurisdiction, courts of equity have in this state over the administration of primary election laws is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joughin v. Parks
...the question of whether or not a writ of prohibition absolute should be entered. See Joughin v. Parks (Fla.) 143 So. 145 and Joughin v. Parks (Fla.) 143 So. 306, previous considerations of this case. In Joughin v. Parks, 143 So. 306, supra, we purposely held the cause on the docket to deter......