Martinez v. Martinez, 74311
| Decision Date | 15 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 74311,74311 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 307,545 So.2d 1338 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 307 Elvin L. MARTINEZ, etc., Petitioner, v. Bob MARTINEZ, etc., Respondent. . Order |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
The petition for quo warranto is denied, with opinion to follow. The governor's motion to dismiss and/or quash is denied.
Elvin L. Martinez, a member of the Florida House of Representatives, petitioned this Court for a writ of quo warranto to prohibit Governor Bob Martinez from including within his call for a special session of the legislature consideration of the state turnpike system. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(8), Florida Constitution, and deny the petition. 1
On June 3, 1989 Governor Martinez called a one-day special session of the legislature to consider the following matters:
1. Legislation to authorize the implementation of the expanded Turnpike System approved by the 1988 Legislature and the reform of right of way acquisition procedures by the Department of Transportation.
2. Legislation relating to growth management and protection of the environment.
3. Legislation providing for the controlled release of inmates.
4. Legislation providing for victim restitution.
5. Legislation providing for drug abuse control.
The legislature adjourned that special session without enacting any legislation dealing with the turnpike system. On June 14, 1989 Governor Martinez called a second special session 2 to consider the following issues:
1. Legislation to authorize bonding to implement necessary turnpike projects.
2. Legislation providing for the protection of children from injuries and death as a result of access to unlawfully placed firearms.
3. Legislation to address the needs of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind.
Representative Martinez argues that the first issue in each of the two special sessions is the same and that Governor Martinez does not have the constitutional power to call more than one special session dealing with the same subject. Governor Martinez, on the other hand, claims that it is his privilege and right to call as many special sessions, on whatever subjects, as he wishes. The governor also argues that Representative Martinez improperly seeks relief through quo warranto and that he has no standing to bring this action.
We disagree with the governor's last two contentions. Quo warranto is the proper method to test the "exercise of some right or privilege, the peculiar powers of which are derived from the State." Winter v. Mack, 142 Fla. 1, 8, 194 So. 225, 228 (1940). Compare, e.g., State ex rel. Smith v. Brummer, 426 So.2d 532 (Fla.1982) (), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 823, 104 S.Ct. 90, 78 L.Ed.2d 97 (1983); Orange County v. City of Orlando, 327 So.2d 7 (Fla.1976) (); Austin v. State ex rel. Christian, 310 So.2d 289 (Fla.1975) (). Testing the governor's power to call special sessions through quo warranto proceedings is therefore appropriate. In quo warranto proceedings seeking the enforcement of a public right 3 the people are the real party to the action and the person bringing suit "need not show that he has any real or personal interest in it." State ex rel. Pooser v. Wester, 126 Fla. 49, 53, 170 So. 736, 737 (1936). However, in the instant case, as a member of the legislature being called into special session, Representative Martinez is directly affected by the governor's action. We hold, therefore, that he has standing to challenge the governor's power to call a special session.
Turning to the merits of Representative Martinez' claim, we find that it must be rejected. The pertinent provision of the state constitution reads as follows:
(c) SPECIAL SESSIONS.
(1) The governor, by proclamation stating the purpose, may convene the legislature in special session during which only such legislative business may be transacted as is within the purview of the proclamation, or of a communication from the governor, or is introduced by consent of two-thirds of the membership of each house.
Art. III, § 3(c)(1), Fla. Const. By its plain language this constitutional provision does not limit the number of special sessions a governor may call, nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida House of Representatives v. Crist
...to determine whether a state officer or agency has improperly exercised a power or right derived from the State. See Martinez v. Martinez, 545 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Fla.1989); see also art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const. Here, the Governor is a state officer. The House challenges the Governor's auth......
-
State ex rel. Webb v. Cianci
...citizen and taxpayer" has "the right to inquire into the right of the respondent to hold a public office." The court in Martinez v. Martinez, 545 So.2d 1338 (Fla.1989), noted that "[i]n quo warranto proceedings seeking the enforcement of a public right the people are the real party to the a......
-
Whiley v. Scott
...has improperly exercised a power or right derived from the State. See Fla. House of Reps. v. Crist, 999 So.2d 601, 607 (Fla.2008); Martinez, 545 So.2d at 1339. This Court “may” issue a writ of quo warranto which renders this Court's exercise of jurisdiction discretionary. Art. V, § 3(b)(8),......
-
Chiles v. Phelps, s. 92474
...555 So.2d 839 (Fla.1990) (mandamus petition by House of Representatives challenging governor's exercise of veto power); Martinez v. Martinez, 545 So.2d 1338 (Fla.1989) (quo warranto petition by house member challenging governor's authority to include within call for special session consider......
-
Which writ is which? A trial attorney's guide to Florida's extraordinary writs.
...rel. Landis v. S.H. Kress & Co., 155 So. 823 (Fla. 1934). (50) See FLA. STAT. [section]545.08 (2006). (51) See Martinez v. Martinez, 545 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. (52) FLA. CONST. art. V, [section][section]3(b)(7), 4(b)(3), 5(b); FLA. R. APP. p. 9.030(a)(3), (b)(3), (c)(3). (53) See, e.g., Flor......