DANTE
v.
RYAN
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.
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City to respond in writing to a March 3, 2022 demand letter under the Bert Harris Act. The court denied the petition because the City had already responded to Petitioner's initial claim and Petitioner had adequate legal remedies available under Florida law.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied because the City has already responded to Petitioner's initial letter and because Chapter 70, Florida Statutes affords Petitioner adequate legal remedies.
[1] Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel a public official to perform a duty, but it requires a clear legal right to the requested action and no other adequate legal r…
[2] A property owner may file an action in circuit court under section 70.001, Florida Statutes, if a governmental entity fails to issue a statement of allowable uses within…
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 intelligence“Mandamus is the recognized remedy to require a public official to discharge his or her duty.”
Establishes the general availability of mandamus as a remedy against public officials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner sent an initial demand letter to the City on February 7, 2022, claiming damages. The City responded on February 28, 2022, denying the claim…
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 Legal Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s August 26, 2022, Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking this court to compel Respondent to respond in writing to Petitioner’s March 3, 2022 demand letter sent pursuant to section 70.001(4)(a), Florida Statutes (the Bert Harris Act). In support of its petition, Petitioner attached Petitioner’s initial February 7, 2022 letter to the City claiming damages, the City’s February 28, 2022 response denying the claim set forth in the February 7, letter, and Petitioner’s March 3, 2022 reply to the City’s February 28, 2022 response claiming additional damages. Petitioner alleges that the City did not, but was required to, respond to the March 3rd letter. Because the City has responded to Petitioner’s initial letter,1 and because Chapter 70, Florida Statutes affords Petitioner a legal remedy, the petition must be denied.
Mandamus is the recognized remedy to require a public official to discharge his or her duty. Dante v. Ryan, 979 So. 2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). But mandamus will lie only to enforce a clear legal right to performance of the requested act. Fla. League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397, 400-401 (Fla. 1992); State, ex. Rel. Cortez v. Bentley, 457 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Mandamus does not lie unless Petitioner demonstrates that it has no other adequate legal remedy available. Rucker v. Ruvin, 748 So. 2d 376, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Because Petitioner here has a remedy at law, it is ORDERED that the petition is DENIED on the date imprinted with the Judge’s signature. The Clerk is directed to close the court file.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. League OF Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1992)
- Powell v. Allen, 748 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Johnson v. State, 979 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- State ex rel. Alfonso Cortez v. The Honorable E. Randolph Bentley, 457 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)