Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Williams v. Coleman

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided April 4, 1938PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

In habeas corpus proceedings the strongest intendments are indulged against the petitioner.

The indictment charges that the accused “did * * * unlawfully and corruptly demand and exact” etc.

The word “exact” as used in the statute is not synonymous with the word “demand.” See Callaway v. State, 112 Fla. 599, 152 Sou. 429, where Mr. Justice Ellis said:

“The gravamen of the felony consists in either exacting or accepting a reward or compensation other than that which is provided by law for the performance or non-performance or violation of a law or, rule which is incumbent upon the officer to obey…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Callaway v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1933
  2. Martin v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1895

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Sylvester v. TindallSupreme Court of Florida · 1944
  2. Kelly v. State Ex Rel. LeonardSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
  3. State Ex Rel. Grady v. ColemanSupreme Court of Florida · 1938
  4. Hall v. Florida State Department of Public WelfareDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969
  5. State v. HazelliefDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1962

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API