MICHAEL HARRISON, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT W. NEUMANN, AS THE SHERIFF OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, RESPONDENT
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.
Former deputy sheriff Harrison challenged his termination by seeking certiorari review of a circuit court decision affirming his dismissal. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the hearing review board failed to include written findings of fact and conclusions of law in its termination order, violating procedural due process requirements.
The court held that the hearing review board's failure to include written findings of fact and conclusions of law in its termination order violated procedural due process and the board's operating procedures under chapter 93-67 § 2, Laws of Florida. The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by not requiring the board to make written findings, and the termination order was therefore defective.
[1] A hearing review board's order terminating employment is defective if it fails to include written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[2] A circuit court departs from the essential requirements of law when it affirms a termination order that lacks written findings by the hearing review board.
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 circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law by not requiring that the hearing review board make written findings to support its termination order.”
States the core legal error—the circuit court's failure to enforce the requirement for written findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Harrison, a former deputy sheriff, was terminated from employment. A hearing review board issued a termination order that included only a brie…
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 Written Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Former deputy sheriff Harrison seeks certiorari review of a circuit court appellate decision affirming his termination of employment. We grant the petition and quash the circuit court order because the hearing review board’s order failed to include written findings. The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law by not requiring that the hearing review board make written findings to support its termination order. We do not address the merits of the administrative decision or any other issues raised in the circuit court, but must remand, as the board’s failure to make writ ten findings was a violation of the board’s operating procedure and the special law that created the board, chapter 93-67 § 2 at 97-100, Laws of Florida. See Gramm v. City of Port St. Lucie, 574 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(civil service review board’s failure to make written findings violated due process).
We recognize that there is a brief summary of evidence in the board’s memo; however, patently, there are no material findings. See Smith v. Metropolitan Dade County, 532 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Thomas v. Office of Sheriff, 507 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); City of Miami v. Lopez, 487 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
In Gramm, this court held that the failure of a civil service review board to include written findings of fact or conclusions of law in its employment termination order rendered that order defective on procedural due process grounds. We conclude that the error demonstrated entitlement to relief under the standard for certiorari review of circuit court appellate decisions.1 See 574 So. 2d 1163. In applying Gramm, we acknowledge conflict with Odham v. Petersen, 398 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), disapproved in part, 428 So. 2d 241 (Fla.1983).
As in Gramm, on remand, the board is to be ordered to make the required written findings of fact and conclusions of law. If a new board must be convened, then their findings are to be made on review of the hearing transcripts, or they shall have discretion to take additional evidence and to make a de novo determination, if necessary.
WARNER, C.J., DELL and STONE JJ., concur. . The Gramm decision applied the standard of review set forth in City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982). That standard was not changed in Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ric L. Bradshaw v. Mickins, 946 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…urt applied our decision in a nearly identical case, where we quashed a circuit court’s order affirming the termination of a former deputy’s employment because the hearing review board’s order failed to include written findings. Harrison v. Neumann, 760 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), rev. dismissed, 816 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2001). In Harrison, we concluded that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by not requiring the board to make findings. The primary issue here is the sheriffs co…
-
Ramsey_v._Mina_ _2022 CA 3 O_ _6.16.2024 (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2024)
-
Vidler_v._Mina_ _2021 CA 11377 O_ _6.16.2024 (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- Odham v. Petersen, 398 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Cruz v. State, 532 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Odham v. Michael N. Petersen & the Bd. of Adjustments of Volusia Cnty., 428 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1983)
- City OF Miami v. Lopez, 487 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Thomas v. Off. OF the Sheriff, 507 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Gramm v. City OF Port ST. Lucie, 574 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)