RADFORD
v.
BROCK
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.
In this appellate decision, the court addressed a petitioner's claims for writs of certiorari and mandamus challenging a Building Official's denial of a permit. The court granted motions to dismiss Counts II and III, finding that the permit denial was not a quasi-judicial decision reviewable by certiorari and that the petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right or ministerial duty supporting mandamus relief.
The court held that the Building Official's permit denial does not constitute a quasi-judicial decision reviewable by certiorari under Snyder, that review by certiorari is appropriate only for quasi-judicial decisions and not other local government decisions, and that the petitioner failed to establish the clear legal right and indisputable legal duty required for mandamus relief.
[1] A decision is quasi-judicial and reviewable by writ of certiorari if the character of the proceeding demonstrates it is quasi-judicial.
[2] To obtain a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested action, an indisputable legal duty to perform the action, and the absence…
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“the character of the proceeding that determines whether the decision is quasi-judicial”
Establishes the standard for determining if a decision is quasi-judicial and thus reviewable by certiorari, citing Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner sought writs of certiorari and mandamus challenging a Building Official's denial of a permit. Petitioner cited City Code § 5-104.2 as manda…
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
On December 27, 2024, Respondents filed a response to Counts II and III of Petitioner’s Petitions for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus. The response included motions to dismiss Counts I, II, and III. Having reviewed the petition(s), response, appendix, and relevant law, the court finds:
1. Motion to Dismiss Count I is DENIED. 2. Petitioner has failed to establish the Building Official’s denial of his permit was a quasi-judicial decision under the standard set forth in Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469, 474 (Fla. 1993) (finding a municipal body’s quasi-judicial decision is reviewable by petition for writ of certiorari and it is the character of the proceeding that determines whether the decision is quasi-judicial). While review of a quasi-judicial decision by petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court is appropriate, the same is not true for other local government decisions. Motion to Dismiss Count II is GRANTED. 3. Petitioner cites City Code § 5-104.2 as the mandatory authority requiring the Building Official to issue a permit for Petitioner, but there is nothing in § 5-104.2 or the petition to support the conclusion Petitioner has a right to a building permit or the Building Official has a ministerial duty to issue one under the circumstances at hand. “A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law.” Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 06/23/2025 12:10:55 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit. Page 1 2d DCA 2005) (internal citations omitted). Motion to Dismiss Count III is GRANTED.
Counts II & III are DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to change the designation of case 24-CA-005328 to a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on the date imprinted with the Judge’s signature.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)
- Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)