Bryant v. Gray
1954 Fla. LEXIS 1290, 70 So.2d 581 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment when the issue presented is hypothetical, remote, or contingent upon uncertain future events and does not involve a bona fide, actual, present controversy between truly adverse parties.
Facts:
- Petitioner Farris C. Bryant stated he was legally eligible to become a candidate for Governor of Florida for the unexpired term in the 1954 election and was prepared to comply with qualification provisions.
- Bryant also stated he was desirous of seeking election for a full term as Governor in the 1956 general election.
- Bryant expressed doubt about whether, if elected Governor for the unexpired term in 1954, he could then seek re-election for a full term in the 1956 general election under Sections 2 and 19 of Article IV of the State Constitution.
- Bryant named R.A. Gray (Secretary of State), J. Brailey Odham, and LeRoy Collins (who were candidates for Governor in the 1954 primaries) as defendants.
- Gray, Odham, and Collins each filed answers stating that the question of Bryant's future re-election eligibility did not involve their immediate official duties or personal concerns, indicating no present controversy with Bryant on that matter.
- Bryant did not specifically allege that he would become a candidate for either the unexpired term in 1954 or the full term in 1956, only that he was 'prepared' and 'desirous'.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Farris C. Bryant filed a suit seeking a declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court of Leon County (a trial court), asking for a construction of Sections 2 and 19 of Article IV of the State Constitution regarding gubernatorial re-election eligibility.
- The Circuit Court entered a final decree, providing Bryant with the answer he sought.
- Bryant appealed the Circuit Court's final decree to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a request for a declaratory judgment justiciable when the petitioner's potential future political actions and the relevant legal landscape are uncertain, hypothetical, and contingent, and there is no present, actual, adverse, and antagonistic interest between the parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Mathews, Justice
No, a request for a declaratory judgment is not justiciable when the petitioner's potential future political actions and the relevant legal landscape are uncertain, hypothetical, and contingent, and there is no present, actual, adverse, and antagonistic interest between the parties. The Court held that it was without jurisdiction to enter a declaratory decree because the question presented was hypothetical, too remote in time, and too uncertain as to contingencies. For a declaratory judgment to be entertained, there must be a "bona fide, actual, present practical need for the declaration" dealing with "a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts." The Court noted that the petitioner merely alleged he "might be" a candidate and the issue depended on a series of uncertain future events, including his nomination, election, survival, and no constitutional amendments. Furthermore, the Secretary of State and the other candidates explicitly disavowed any immediate or present controversy with Bryant regarding his potential future re-election, meaning there were no actual, adverse, and antagonistic interests between the parties. The relief sought amounted to legal advice to satisfy curiosity rather than a resolution of a present dispute.
Dissenting - Terrell, Justice
Yes, the question presented should be considered justiciable, despite the majority's concerns regarding hypothetical nature. Justice Terrell argued that while the question might seem like one between individuals, it involved an important public question concerning constitutional provisions for the office of Governor, which were susceptible to more than one interpretation. He believed that candidates and the electorate were entitled to have this question answered, the atmosphere clarified, and doubts removed before the upcoming November election, citing a previous case, State ex rel. Ayres v. Gray, where the court addressed a similar public question.
Dissenting - Roberts, C.J.
Yes, the question presented should be considered justiciable. Chief Justice Roberts concurred with Justice Terrell's view that the court should take jurisdiction for the public interest reasons stated in the dissenting opinion. He further stated that, if jurisdiction were taken, he would hold that Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution would bar a person elected Governor, whether for a two-year or four-year term, from succeeding themselves in that office. However, he deemed it unnecessary to detail his reasons for this interpretation given the majority's decision to dismiss the cause.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the strict requirements for judicial intervention through declaratory judgments, emphasizing that courts are not meant to provide advisory opinions on hypothetical or future events. It reinforces the principle that a justiciable controversy must be actual, present, and involve truly adverse parties. The decision limits the scope of declaratory relief, ensuring judicial resources are directed at concrete disputes, and serves as a precedent for denying jurisdiction when the alleged controversy is speculative or remote, thus maintaining the separation of powers by preventing courts from legislating or pre-empting political processes.
