Joyner v. Shuman
Decision Date | 04 December 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 1576,1576 |
Citation | 116 So.2d 472 |
Parties | R. Tom JOYNER, Jr., William G. Cooper, Jr., Clarence O. Fisher and Wendell H. Watson, individually and as members of the City Commission of the City of Lakeland, Florida, Appellants, v. L. R. SHUMAN, as City Clerk of the City of Lakeland, Florida, and Gay Murphy, as Acting City Clerk of the City of Lakeland, Florida, and Roy H. McArthur, Morris Pritchard, T. E. Holcom and John R. Phillips, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert T. Miller, City Atty., Lakeland, and T. Paine Kelly, Jr., and Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellants.
E. Snow Martin, D. B. Kibler, III, and Bryant, Martin & Kibler, Lakeland, for intervenor-appellees.
R. Tom Joyner, Jr., William G. Cooper, Jr., Clarence O. Fisher and Wendell H. Watson, individually and as members of the City Commission of the City of Lakeland, Florida, filed an action to enjoin the holding of a recall election in which the said parties were subject to be recalled as city commissioners of the City of Lakeland. A hearing was held and injunction denied.
A companion case involving the same questions of law was filed by Roy H. McArthur and others to secure a mandamus writ requiring the city commissioners of the City of Lakeland forthwith to do all things necessary to call and hold a recall election pursuant to the city charter of the City of Lakeland on the 17th day of November, 1959, for the purpose of determining whether the above named four city commissioners should be recalled from their office. The first case is carried as this court's case number 1576 and the latter case as case number 1577. The two cases were consolidated in the lower court for argument; and, on the entering of a final decree adverse to the appellants, an appeal was taken to this court in both cases which were consolidated for briefing and oral argument.
Petition for supersedeas was denied by the lower court in each case; and a motion for review was filed in this court immediately, which petition was taken under advisement by this court.
This court, on the 13th day of November, 1959, entered an order reversing the circuit judge and directing that the city commission of the City of Lakeland meet forthwith and cancel the recall election set for November 17th. A per curiam opinion and order was entered in case number 1577 with the statement made therein that due to a lack of time a full opinion was not being written, but subsequently such an opinion would be written and filed in case number 1576.
Section 169 of the charter of the City of Lakeland provides in part:
'Any or all members of the City Commission may be removed from office by the electors by the following procedure: A petition for the recall of commissioners designated, signed by at least twenty per cent of the electors of the city, and containing a statement of not more than two hundred words of the grounds of the recall, shall be filed with the city clerk, who shall forthwith notify the commissioner or commissioners sought to be recalled, and he or they, within five days after such notice, may file with such city clerk, a defensive statement in not exceeding two hundred words.'
Petitions for recall were filed and circulated, pursuant to the city charter of the City of Lakeland, alleging generally that the four commissioners should be recalled for their actions in removing the city manager, city attorney and the assistant city attorney. The city commissioners sought to be recalled contended in the lower court and in this court that the city commission had the legal right to remove each of the officials and, therefore, that no valid grounds were assigned for their recall. The lower court, in its order of the 8th of October, 1959, held that the grounds of the recall were sufficient and issued the peremptory writ hereinabove referred to ordering the recall election. The court, in his final decree, said:
'3. The law governing this matter is as set forth in McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, 3d Edition, 1949 4th Volume, § 12.251 at page 313, which is as follows:
The circuit judge had ample precedent to support his position that the grounds of the recall were sufficient in authorities outside of the State of Florida. For instance, 19 R.C.L.Mun.Corp., § 239, page 939, states:
(Emphasis added.)
In 28 Am.Jur., Initiative, Referendum and Recall, § 59, page 183, a further elaboration is given citing the above quoted text.
In 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 516, the following is stated in regard to the sufficiency of the grounds of a recall petition:
Charles S. Rhyne, in his book on Municipal Law, 1957 Edition, at page 189, states with reference to recall:
In the case of State ex rel. Hackley v. Edmonds, 1948, 150 Ohio St. 203, 80 N.E.2d 769, 770, an original mandamus proceeding was filed in the Supreme Court to compel the city clerk of the City of Hamilton to issue recall petition forms as provided by the charter of the city. A general demurrer was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bower, In re
...S.E. 489; People ex rel. Elliott v. O'Hara, 246 Mich. 312, 224 N.W. 384; Newberg v. Donnelly, 235 Mich. 531, 209 N.W. 572; Joyner v. Shuman (Fla.App.), 116 So.2d 472) are cited by appellants in support of their position, although appellants' counsel fails to note that the cited Michigan cas......
-
Gordon v. Leatherman
...state the grounds therefor. 7 Richard v. Tomlinson, 49 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1951). 8 See, 11 Fla.Jur., Elections, § 155. 9 Joyner v. Shuman, 116 So.2d 472 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1959). 10 Hines v. Dozer, 134 So.2d 548, 550 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1961). 11 Tolar v. Johns, 147 So.2d 196 (2d D.C. A.Fla.1962). 12 Piv......
-
Gibson v. Kesterson, 1D15–956.
...number to initiate the recall proceeding and a majority of the electorate support the recall group in their views." Joyner v. Shuman, 116 So.2d 472, 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). See, e.g., Sproat v. Arnau, 213 So.2d 692, 692 (Fla.1968) (affirming denial of injunction to stop recall election wher......
-
Sproat v. Arnau, 37464
...Fla.Const. State ex rel. Landis v. Tedder, 106 Fla. 140, 143 So. 148.3 Richard v. Tomlinson, Fla.1951, 49 So.2d 798; Joyner v. Shuman, Fla.App.1959, 116 So.2d 472.4 Vol. 4, McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, 3rd ed., Sec. 12.251. DuBose v. Kelly, 132 Fla. 548, 181 So. 11; State ex rel. Wa......