COMMISSION ON ETHICS, APPELLANT,
v.
L.H. LANCASTER, 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 Florida Ethics Commission appealed a trial court's denial of its motion to change venue and the entry of a temporary injunction restraining it from conducting ethics proceedings against a county elections supervisor. The appellate court reversed, holding that venue was improper in Clay County and must be transferred to Leon County where the Commission has its official headquarters, and vacated the injunction as a void proceeding.
The court held that venue is improper in Clay County and must be transferred to Leon County, where the Ethics Commission has its official headquarters, because the 'sword-wielder' doctrine exception does not apply. The court vacated the temporary injunction because all subsequent proceedings following an improper denial of a motion for change of venue are void.
[1] Venue for an action against a state agency or officer is proper in the county where the agency has its official headquarters, unless the "sword-wielder" doctrine applies.
[2] The "sword-wielder" doctrine, which allows for venue outside the agency's headquarters, applies only when direct judicial protection is sought from an unlawful invasion o…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Ordinarily, an action against a state agency or officer must be brought in the county in which the agency has its official headquarters.”
Establishes the general rule for venue in actions against state agencies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Ethics Commission received complaints against L.H. Lancaster, Supervisor of Elections of Clay County, alleging sexual harassment violations. After…
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 Sword-Wielder Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The Ethics Commission appeals the denial of its motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue and the entry of a temporary injunction against it. We reverse the denial of the motion for change of venue, order that the case be transferred to Leon County, and vacate the injunction.
This case began when various individuals filed a complaint with the Ethics Commission charging Lancaster, the Supervisor of Elections of Clay County, with several acts of sexual harassment against some of his female employees in violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (1981). The Commission ordered a preliminary investigation of the charges, and, after it was completed, advised Lancaster of its intent to hold a “probable cause” hearing to determine whether further action was warranted. Section 112.324(2), Florida Statutes (1981), and Rule 34-5.-06, Florida Administrative Code. On the day set for hearing, Lancaster requested that the matter be continued to enable the Commission’s staff to conduct further investigation and to prepare a supplemental report. The Commission granted the continuance and advised Lancaster that the “probable cause” hearing had been rescheduled for 19 May 1982.
On 19 May, Lancaster sought and obtained from the circuit court in Clay County an ex parte order temporarily restraining the Commission from conducting any further proceedings and from making public any information about the charges which had previously been gathered. After a hearing on 27 May 1982, the trial court denied the Commission’s motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue and entered an order continuing the injunction.
Ordinarily, an action against a state agency or officer must be brought in the county in which the agency has its official headquarters. Carlile v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1978). An exception to that rule is known as the “sword-wielder” doctrine. We hold that this doctrine is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. “The ‘sword-wielder’ doctrine ... applies only where direct judicial protection is sought from an unlawful invasion of a constitutional right of the plaintiff....” Florida Public Service Commission v. Triple “A” Enterprises, Inc., 387 So. 2d 940, 942 (Fla.1980). The Commission’s actions in this case do not constitute an unlawful invasion of any of Lancaster’s constitutionally protected rights. Garner v. Florida Commission on Ethics, 415 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Therefore, venue is proper only in Leon County.
When the trial court improperly denies a motion for change of venue, all subsequent proceedings are void. Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County v. District Court In and For the City and County of Denver, 632 P. 2d 1017 (Colo.1981). Accordingly, the injunction is vacated.
Reversed and remanded for transfer to the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida, Leon County, for further appropriate proceedings.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Division OF Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Winfield, 443 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ing Dade County to be the correct forum. See Florida Public [*458] Service Commission v. Triple “A ” Enterprises, Inc., 387 So. 2d 940 (Fla.1980). We must also agree with this claim. As the First District opined in Commission on Ethics v. Lancaster, 421 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), an action against a State agency should normally be brought in the county where the agency maintains its headquarters unless the sword-wielder doctrine intervenes. That doctrine is not apropos here because of our reluctant concl…
-
Fay Kalodish v. S. Fla. State Hosp. & Amerimanage, Inc., 536 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…ing been based on the misconstruction of the law by the Keith court, is no transfer at all, but a nullity. All that is happening now is the undoing of a legally improper action of the court. Appellees analogize to Commission on Ethics v. Lancaster, 421 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 430 So. 2d 451 (Fla.1983), where, by denying the appellant’s motion to transfer for improper venue, the court violated the doctrine that ordinarily an action against a state agency or officer must be brou…
Authorities Cited
- Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n of the State of Fla., 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1977)
- Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Triple "A" Enters., Inc., 387 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 1980)
- Garner v. The Fla. Comm'n ON Ethics, 415 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)