CITY OF HOLLYWOOD EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND AND THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA, PETITIONERS,
v.
MARY ALLEN, 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.
The court denied the petition for writ of certiorari because the appellate court's review is limited to procedural due process and essential requirements of law, not reweighing evidence.
[1] A court reviewing a decision by writ of certiorari will only consider procedural due process and whether the essential requirements of law were observed.
[2] A circuit court, in its review capacity, determines if procedural due process was afforded, if the essential requirements of law were observed, and if there is substantia…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Pension Board denied a disability pension, finding the disability was not work-related. The Circuit Court reversed this decision. The Pension Boar…
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 Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
The Pension Board of the City of Hollywood Employees Retirement Fund determined that respondent, Mary Allen, was not entitled to a pension in an amount equivalent to seventy five percent (75%) of her salary, upon becoming permanently disabled, because her disability was not the direct and proximate result of and while in the performance of an act of duty as an employee of the City of Hollywood.-
The Circuit Court reversed for lack of competent substantial evidence to support the findings of the Pension Board and for other related reasons.
By petition for writ of certiorari we are requested to reverse this ruling of the Circuit Court.
The petition contains a summary of the pertinent evidence and attempts to conclude that as a matter of law the findings of the Circuit Court are not supportable. What we are asked to do, in reality, is to reweigh the evidence, to eliminate unjustifiable inferences drawn from that evidence and by that process to determine that the finding of the Pension Board was based upon at least some evidence. We decline to do so.
The Circuit Court, sitting in its review capacity, considers whether procedural due process was afforded, whether the essential requirements of the law were observed and whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the finding under review. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 399 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
When the cause reaches this Court for further review by way of certiorari, only procedural due process considerations or failure to observe the essential requirements of the law may properly be raised as grounds for reversal. Campbell v. Vetter, 392 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, supra.
There has bee.n no showing here, either that petitioners were not afforded procedural due process or that the Circuit Court failed to observe the essential requirements of law. On that basis we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
LETTS, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Campbell v. Vetter, 392 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 399 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)