State v. Joughin

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation107 Fla. 850,145 So. 174
PartiesSTATE ex rel. HATTON v. JOUGHIN.
Decision Date05 January 1933

145 So. 174

107 Fla. 850

STATE ex rel. HATTON
v.
JOUGHIN.

Florida Supreme Court

January 5, 1933


En Banc.

On petition for a rehearing.

Petition denied.

For former opinion, see 103 Fla. 877, 138 So. 392.

BROWN, J., dissenting.

COUNSEL [107 Fla. 851] Dickenson & Lake, of Tampa, and Waller & Pepper, of Tallahassee, for relator.

Charles F. Blake, Peter O. Knight, Sutton, Tillman & Reeves, and Pat. Whitaker, all of Tampa, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A petition for rehearing suggests that in our previous decision of this case there is an irreconcilable conflict between that opinion and what was said in State ex rel. Attorney General v. Johnson, 30 Fla. 433, 11 So. 845, 18 L. R. A. 410, as well as what was said in Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 69 Fla. 508, 68 So. 450.

No purpose was expressed in our opinion filed December 12, 1931 (reported in 103 Fla. 877, 138 So. 392) to overrule or modify what was said in either of the two previous decisions cited; nor are we able to comprehend where there is any conflict such as the petition for a rehearing asserts exists.

Assuming that it is true that the Governor's communication to the Senate, when liberally construed, does not contain a sufficient recommendation for removal from office to comply with the requirements of section 15 of article 4 of the Constitution, as it was construed by this court in Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 69 Fla. 508, 68 So. 450, it cannot be said that the Senate's action, based on the communication that was actually sent to the Senate by the Governor in this case, was so nugatory that after the Senate had accepted it as being sufficient, and had had a hearing and acted on it without any protest or objection at the time, on the part of the affected officer, whose conduct is consistent with the idea that he himself accepted and regarded it as sufficient to authorize the Senate to proceed, that the Senate's action can be collaterally attacked [107 Fla. 852] and avoided after the Senate has acted and adjourned, as was the case here.

The power conferred upon the Governor and the Senate by section 15 of article 4 of the Constitution, to bring about the removal of certain officers for specific causes, implies authority to judge of the existence of the cause, and orders made in the exercise of that power are presumptively valid and based upon sufficient procedural steps to warrant the same, unless the contrary is clearly made to appear....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Patten v. Miller, Nos. 13218, 13217.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • April 10, 1940
    ...v. Coleman, 115 Fla. 119, 155 So. 129, 92 A.L.R. 988, annotation, 998; State ex rel. Hatton v. Joughin, 103 Fla. 877, 138 So. 392; Id., 107 Fla. 850, 145 So. 174; Village of Kendrick v. Nelson, 13 Idaho 244, 89 P. 755, 12 Ann.Cas. 993; State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 48 P.2d ......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...State ex rel. v. Sheppard, 192 Mo. 497, 91 S.W. 481; State ex rel. Hatton v. Joughin, 103 Fla. 877, 138 So. 392, rehearing denied, 107 Fla. 850, 145 So. 174. The aforesaid provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions are designated to exclude arbitrary power from every branch of the go......
  • State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, No. 7364.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • February 18, 1935
    ...that cause exists. Compare Boyd v. Pendegast, 57 Cal. App. 504, 207 P. 713, and cases therein cited; State ex rel. Hatton v. Joughin, 107 Fla. 850, 145 So. 174. The removing power has a wide discretion in such cases. Whatever may be said as to whether notice and hearing are necessary before......
  • State Ex Rel. Hardee v. Allen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 19, 1937
    ...will be indulged in to support the sufficiency of the challenged acts of the Governor and the Senate.' State ex rel. v. Joughin, 107 Fla. 850, 145 So. 174. The courts have no authority by interpretation to add to or modify explicit provisions of the State Constitution that do not conflict w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Patten v. Miller, Nos. 13218, 13217.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • April 10, 1940
    ...v. Coleman, 115 Fla. 119, 155 So. 129, 92 A.L.R. 988, annotation, 998; State ex rel. Hatton v. Joughin, 103 Fla. 877, 138 So. 392; Id., 107 Fla. 850, 145 So. 174; Village of Kendrick v. Nelson, 13 Idaho 244, 89 P. 755, 12 Ann.Cas. 993; State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 48 P.2d ......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Williams, No. 36718.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 9, 1940
    ...State ex rel. v. Sheppard, 192 Mo. 497, 91 S.W. 481; State ex rel. Hatton v. Joughin, 103 Fla. 877, 138 So. 392, rehearing denied, 107 Fla. 850, 145 So. 174. The aforesaid provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions are designated to exclude arbitrary power from every branch of the go......
  • State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, No. 7364.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • February 18, 1935
    ...that cause exists. Compare Boyd v. Pendegast, 57 Cal. App. 504, 207 P. 713, and cases therein cited; State ex rel. Hatton v. Joughin, 107 Fla. 850, 145 So. 174. The removing power has a wide discretion in such cases. Whatever may be said as to whether notice and hearing are necessary before......
  • State Ex Rel. Hardee v. Allen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 19, 1937
    ...will be indulged in to support the sufficiency of the challenged acts of the Governor and the Senate.' State ex rel. v. Joughin, 107 Fla. 850, 145 So. 174. The courts have no authority by interpretation to add to or modify explicit provisions of the State Constitution that do not conflict w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT