TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Berkemeyer v. Gaines

State, Ex Rel., Raymond J. Berkemeyer, Et Al., Relators, v. J. Paul Gaines, as County Tax Assessor for Sarasota County, Florida, Respondent

State ex rel. Berkemeyer v. Gaines, 131 So. 115 (Fla. 1930)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 28, 1930
Judges
Terrell, Whitfield, Brown, Buford
Citations
131 So. 115100 Fla. 1372

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

The alternative writ of mandamus herein commanded the Tax Assessor of Sarasota County, Florida, to forthwith commence the revision of the tax roll of said county and to calculate and carry out the total amount of the taxes as indicated in the alternative writ or to show cause &c. The return of the respondent indicates that the respondent knew of litigation in this Court which affected his duty in making up the tax roll, and states that' under the statute requiring the assessor to make out one *1373 tax roll and two fair copies and to turn over one copy of the tax roll to the State Comptroller •not earlier than the first Monday in October of each year, the respondent on the first Monday in October, 1930, delivered the original and one copy to the County Commissioners, which they accepted, and the next day respondent delivered one copy to the State Comptroller which he accepted; that the tax rolls are not in respondents’ possession and that he has “no assurance that” he could “repossess them.”

This return is insufficient in that the respondent does not aver that he has made demand upon the present-custodians of the original tax roll and the two copies and that a return of the books to the respondent has been refused. The return is insufficient and the respondent is allowed ten days in which to almend his return. If the return is not- amended within ten days, the motion for a peremptory writ will then be acted upon by the Court.

It is so ordered.

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

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1932: 11935: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list