FRED MURRAY, PETITIONER,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Fred Murray, a former CETA park attendant dismissed by Metropolitan Dade County, sought certiorari review of a circuit court order dismissing his administrative appeal. The appellate court reversed, finding that Murray properly complied with appellate rules by serving notice on the county manager, and that the personnel director does not qualify as the "clerk" required under the rules.
Murray properly complied with the Rules of Appellate Procedure by filing his notice of administrative appeal with the county manager's office within 30 days of the termination order. The personnel director does not fall within the statutory definition of "clerk" and therefore was not a required recipient of the notice of appeal.
[1] A notice of administrative appeal is timely filed when it is filed with the office of the county manager within the prescribed time period.
[2] The personnel director of a county is not considered the "clerk" for the purposes of serving notice of appeal under the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A review of the record reveals that petitioner did, in fact, comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure — that is, a notice of administrative appeal was filed with the office of the county manager within thirty (30) days of the rendition of the county manager's order, as well as a notice of appeal with the circuit court.”
Establishes that Murray complied with the procedural requirements for filing an administrative appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurray was dismissed from his position as a CETA park attendant for alleged offensive conduct and belligerence toward superiors and coworkers in viola…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rules Of Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Petitioner, Murray, seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari to review the order of the circuit court which granted a motion to dismiss filed by the county. We grant the relief sought and direct that the order be quashed.
Petitioner is a former employee of Metropolitan Dade County who was dismissed as a CETA park attendant with the Homestead Bay Front Park for alleged violations of the Metropolitan Dade County Personnel Rules, Chapter VIII, for “offensive conduct toward his fellow employees” and “belligerence and antagonism toward superiors and fellow employees.” The findings of fact recited by the hearing officer were explicit and detailed; however, the hearing examiner concluded that the said behavior was not so alien to the type of work and conduct of personnel in the field as to warrant termination, and recommended that Murray be reinstated to his job and have a short period of suspension together with a reprimand. The county manager thereafter adopted the findings of fact but, contrary to the hearing officer’s recommendation, terminated the employment of Murray. Thereafter notice of appeal was filed from the termination order. After the cause proceeded somewhat further, the county filed a motion to dismiss, and subsequent to much procedural maneuvering by both parties, the motion was granted. The apparent basis for the order is that Murray served his notice of appeal upon the county manager when he was actually required to serve such notice upon the personnel director for the county. We cannot agree with this reasoning. A review of the record reveals that petitioner did, in fact, comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure — that is, a notice of administrative appeal was filed with the office of the county manager within thirty (30) days of the rendition of the county manager’s order, as well as a notice of appeal with the circuit court. See Fla.R. App.P. 9.020 (1977 Revision). The county contends that its personnel director is the “clerk” of the county manager for the purposes of appeal and that because the petitioner did not file a copy of the notice with the personnel director, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to entertain the cause.
Unquestionably, the personnel director does not fall within the definition of “clerk” as defined in Rule 9.020(b). See Section 34.031, Florida Statutes (1977) [Clerk of circuit/county court] and Chapter 28, Florida Statutes (1977) [Clerks of the circuit courts, rights and duties, etc.] and compare with Sections 2-27 and 2-28 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The petitioner clearly complied with the requirements for appeal of the county manager’s decision.
The order under review is hereby quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCRAE v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 383 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. The order of the circuit court dismissing the appeal is reversed and the appeal reinstated on the reasoning and authority of Murray v. Metropolitan Dade County, 382 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Reversed and remanded.…