THOMAS KOULIANOS, AS MAYOR-COMMISSIONER AND ANTHONY SAMARKOS, BEA RAYNARD, EVE LELEKIS AND ANITA PROTOS, AS CITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
JO ANN W. PHILLIPS, 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.
A writ of prohibition cannot be used to control the decisions of a board of commissioners unless they are acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial function.
[1] A writ of prohibition may only be directed to a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal or officer.
[2] Prohibition does not lie to control legislative, executive, or ministerial action.
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 intelligenceAppellee filed a prohibition complaint to prevent the Tarpon Springs Board of Commissioners from reinstating an employee without a hearing. The trial …
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 Ministerial Action cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
The facts of this case are fully recited at Davis v. Civil Service Board of City of Tarpon Springs, 501 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Appellee filed a “Prohibition Complaint” against appellants in an effort to keep the Tarpon Springs Board of Commissioners from reinstating Davis without a Civil Service Board hearing. The trial court granted the writ and filed an order nisi in prohibition against appellants.
While the “Prohibition Complaint” and the subsequent entry of the order are riddled with procedural and substantive problems, we need only reach one for reversal. A writ of prohibition cannot be used in an attempt to control the decisions of the Tarpon Springs Board of Commissioners unless they are acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial function. The principle upon which we rely has been stated as follows:
At common law it is well settled that a writ of prohibition must be directed to some judicial tribunal or officer. In other words, it lies only to prevent or control judicial (or quasi judicial) action, as distinguished from legislative, executive, or ministerial action. Accordingly, it is generally held that prohibition will not lie to prevent the performance of ministerial duties by executive or administrative officers, or to restrain the performance by the courts of duties which are merely administrative and ministerial.
State ex rel. Swearingen v. Railroad Commissioners of Florida, 79 Fla. 526, 84 So. 444, 445 (1920). Accord State ex rel. Turner v. Earle, 295 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1974); Owen v. Bond, 83 Fla. 495, 91 So. 686 (1922); Baptiste v. Johnson, 434 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The Tarpon Springs Board of Commissioners was not acting in a judicial, or even quasi-judicial, function when it set on its public meeting agenda the matter of whether to reinstate Roy Davis to his former position.
In light of the foregoing, we hold the trial court, being without jurisdiction, erred in entering the order nisi in prohibition. We, therefore, reverse, set aside and vacate said order. Reversed.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Broward Cnty. v. Fla. Nat'l Props., 613 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…inisterial action. Prohibition lies only to prevent judicial or quasi-judicial actions, not legislative, executive or administerial actions. See State ex rel. Swearingen v. R.R. Comm’rs of Fla., 79 Fla. 526, 84 So. 444 (1920); Koulianos v. Phillips, 516 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA1987). Furthermore, prohibition is an extraordinary writ, to be employed with great caution and utilized only in emergencies, and may be invoked only where the party seeking the writ has no other appropriate and adequate legal remedy. En…
-
City OF Miami v. The Judges OF the Eleventh Jud. Cir., 680 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…is beyond the court’s jurisdiction. Thus, the court could not entertain the petition for writ of certiorari. See Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1995); De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1957); Koulianos v. Phillips, 516 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); G-W Development Corp. v. Village of North Palm Beach Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 317 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Petition for writ of prohibition granted.…
-
Sirgany Int'l, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 845 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…propriately sought against the Inspector General. This is the case as prohibition is applicable only in relation to judicial or quasi-judicial actions. Broward County v. Florida Nat’l Prop., 613 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Koulianos v. Phillips, 516 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). As the Inspector General does not exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions,7 but only makes recommendations to various boards, prohibition is not available. [*1019] The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. . Sirga…
Authorities Cited
- State v. The R.R. Comm'rs of the State of Fla., 79 Fla. 526 (Fla. 1920)
- Burns v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Jack M. Turner v. Earle, 295 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1974)
- Owens v. Bond, 83 Fla. 495 (Fla. 1922)
- Helene Suzette Baptiste and Joseph Henry Baptiste v. Honorable Tom Johnson, 434 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Davis v. Civil Serv. Bd. OF City OF Tarpon Springs, 501 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)