CITY OF MIAMI, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MAYOR JOE CAROLLO, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 court affirmed an injunction blocking a mayoral recall election, holding that a charter amendment changing the mayor's duties from executive to administrative does not abolish the office and therefore constitutes an illegal recall violating due process.
A charter amendment that redistributes a city manager's powers to the mayor and commission, without expressly abolishing the office, changing its selection method, or altering qualifications, does not abolish the mayoral office and therefore an election to recall the mayor violates due process.
[1] Adding responsibilities to an elected office through charter amendment does not constitute abolishment of that office where the amendment does not expressly abolish the o…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 amendment effected only a change from an 'executive' to an 'administrative' mayor by eliminating the position of city manager and redistributing the [city] manager's powers, some to the mayor and some to the commission.”
Trial court's analysis of the charter amendment's effect on the mayoral office.
The City of Miami adopted Charter Amendment No. 1, which eliminated the city manager position and redistributed the manager's powers between the mayor…
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 Due Process Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the underlying case, the trial court enjoined the election scheduled for March 14, 2000, because City of Miami Charter Amendment No. 1 results in an illegal recall in violation of the mayor’s due process rights. On appeal, as below, the City argues, citing City of Jacksonville v. Smoot, 83 Fla. 575, 92 So. 617 (1922), and Hall v. Strickland, 170 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1964), that there has been no illegal recall and that the changes to the mayor’s duties resulting from the charter amendment effectively abolish the office.
After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the trial court’s determination that, “[i]n the present case, the amendment effected only a change from an ‘executive’ to an ‘administrative’ mayor by eliminating the position of city manager and redistributing the [city] manager’s powers, some to the mayor and some to the commission.” Further, we agree with the trial court’s analysis that the cases cited by the City are distinguishable because the changes to the mayor’s duties as prescribed by the charter amendment neither expressly abolish the office itself, nor alter the method of selection of the office, nor change the qualifications of the office. Adding responsibilities to the office does not constitute “abolishment” of the office of mayor. We affirm the injunction of the election scheduled for March 14, 2000, and because of the time constraints involved, we preclude any motions for rehearing and deem this opinion final.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The City of Jacksonville v. Smoot, 83 Fla. 575 (Fla. 1922)
- Hall v. Strickland, 170 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1964)