J.G., A CHILD, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Poole v. City OF Port Orange & MHK of Volusia, 33 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
  …such appraisal, offer, and counteroffer.... .Even if Poole had failed to allege a clear legal duty on the part of the City to produce the appraisals, Count II would still state a cause of action albeit not for mandamus. See, e.g., Shea v. Cochran, 680 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (where mandamus was inappropriate remedy because sheriff provided specific reason for refusing to comply with appellant's records request, appellant had adequate legal remedy for expeditiously obtaining relief pursuant to Florida…
• Rhea v. The Dist. Bd. OF Trs. OF Santa FE Coll., 109 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
  ….” Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). For purposes of mandamus relief, a duty or act is ministerial when no room exists for the exercise of discretion and the law directs the required performance. Shea v. Cochran, 680 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Applied to the instant case, the law of mandamus required the trial court to determine whether Rhea alleged sufficient facts to state a claim that he has a clear legal right to the unredacted copy of the e-mail and that the…
• Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. AN Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
  …t’l v.2000 Island Boulevard, Inc., 698 So. 2d 309, 312 (Fla. [*731] 3d DCA 1997). “A duty or act is defined as ministerial when there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.” Shea v. Cochran, 680 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (quoting Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). Mandamus is available only to “enforce an established legal right ... not to establish that right.” Morse Diesel Int’l, 698 So. 2d at 312; acc…

Authorities Cited

• Callins v. State, 447 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
• Salta Inv., Inc. v. Silva, 584 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
• State v. C.R.S., 584 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)