STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL F. HARTSFIELD, AS CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sought a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court clerk to provide all services related to child support and paternity proceedings without charge. The court affirmed the denial of the mandamus petition, finding that HRS failed to establish which specific services were being denied.
The writ of mandamus was properly denied because HRS failed to demonstrate a clear entitlement to the extraordinary remedy by not establishing which specific services the clerk was declining to provide or under what circumstances those services were necessary.
[1] A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must demonstrate a clear legal right, an indisputable legal duty on the part of the respondent, and the absence of any other adequ…
[2] Mandamus is an extraordinary writ available to enforce an established legal right, but not to establish that right.
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“In order to show entitlement to the extraordinary writ of mandamus, the petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right on his part, an indisputable legal duty on the part of respondents, and that no other adequate remedy exists.”
Establishes the three-element test required to obtain mandamus relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHRS petitioned for a writ of mandamus in circuit court seeking to compel the clerk of the circuit court to provide services without charge, including …
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 Indisputable Legal Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) petitioned for mandamus in the circuit court to compel the clerk of the circuit court to provide to HRS without charge “all necessary services ... including the issuance of photographic copies of necessary court records, relating to civil actions” in child support and paternity proceedings under Chapter 409, Florida Statutes (1979). The circuit court denied the petition for writ of mandamus and this appeal followed. We affirm.
Section 409.2571(1), Florida Statutes (1979) provides that HRS or its agents “shall be entitled to the necessary services of the clerk ... in any proceeding under this act; ... and no fees for such court, clerk or sheriff’s services shall be charged against the department.” (e. s.)
This statute requires the clerk to provide all “necessary services” to HRS without charge. .From the record, we are unable to determine exactly what services the clerk is declining to provide. The petition speaks of “necessary court records” and “photographic copies” but appellant never explains exactly what court records are necessary and under what circumstances they are necessary. We are, therefore, not in a position to determine whether or not “necessary services” are being refused by the clerk.
In order to show entitlement to the extraordinary writ of mandamus, the petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right on his part, an indisputable legal duty on the part of respondents, and that no other adequate remedy exists. State ex rel Eichenbaum v. Cochran, 114 So. 2d 797 (Fla.1959). State ex rel. Blatt v. Panelfab International Corp., 314 So. 2d 196 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Mandamus is available to enforce an established legal right but not to establish that right. Slaughter v. State ex rel. Harrell, 245 So. 2d 126 (Fla.1st DCA 1971). State v. Gamble, 339 So. 2d 694 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).
While we do not necessarily agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the clerk’s duties are divisible into those performed as clerk of the circuit court and those performed as county recorder, we need not consider that determination as we conclude that appellant has failed to show a clear entitlement to a writ of mandamus.
Accordingly the judgment below is affirmed.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., LARRY G. SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Am. Healthcorp of Vero Beach, Inc., 471 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…t of mandamus, “the petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right on his part, an indisputable legal duty on the part of respondents, and that no other adequate remedy exists.” State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Appellee argues that section 120.60(2) provides both its clear right and HRS’s indisputable legal duty. HRS answers that Section 381.494(8)(c), Florida Statutes (1982), provides an exception to section 120.60(2), and that…
-
Odell Hall v. KEY, 476 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…t of mandamus, “the petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right on his part, an indisputable legal duty on the part of respondents, and that no other adequate remedy exists.” State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Hall’s petition apparently relies on the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments for his “clear legal right”, and on Section 944.34, Florida Statutes (1983), for respondents’ “indisputable legal duty”. S…
-
Fla. Soc'y OF Newspaper Editors, Inc. v. The Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 543 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…is used to enforce a clear legal right to the performance of a clear legal duty, rather than to establish such a right. State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr, 133 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1961); State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State v. Gamble, 339 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. den., Gamble v. State, 345 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1977). The Newspapers argue that even if the Commission’s classification of the documents as confidential is correct, it shoul…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Alfred Eichenbaum v. Cochran, 114 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1959)
- State v. Panelfab Int'l Corp., 314 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- State v. Gamble, 339 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Slaughter v. State ex rel. David E. Harrell & Harold Haimowitz, 245 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)