WUESTHOFF MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION, 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.
Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Florida Elections Commission to refer its case for formal administrative hearing rather than informal proceedings. The court denied the petition, holding that mandamus is not available because Wuesthoff has an adequate alternative remedy through appeal of any adverse final order.
The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus because Wuesthoff failed to demonstrate the absence of an adequate alternative legal remedy. Although Wuesthoff may believe the Commission erred in selecting an informal rather than formal hearing, this alleged error can be remedied through appeal of any adverse final order from the informal proceedings.
[1] Mandamus relief is unavailable when an adequate legal remedy, such as an appeal from a final order, exists.
[2] An alleged error in determining the appropriateness of an informal versus a formal hearing can be remedied on appeal from an adverse final order.
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“its entitlement to mandamus relief is dependent upon a showing of the existence of a clear legal right on its part, an indisputable and ministerial duty on the part of the respondent, and the absence of any other adequate legal remedy”
Establishes the three-part test for mandamus relief that the petitioner must satisfy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Elections Commission alleged that Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital violated Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. The Commission determined that an in…
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 Appeal From Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the administrative proceedings below, the Florida Elections Commission alleges that Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital has committed certain violations of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. By petition for writ of mandamus, Wuesthoff seeks an order directing the Commission to refer its request for a formal administrative hearing on the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. We deny the petition.
As Wuesthoff acknowledges, its entitlement to mandamus relief is dependent upon a showing of the existence of a clear legal right on its part, an indisputable and ministerial duty on the part of the respondent, and the absence of any other adequate legal remedy. See Pino v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 604 So. 2d 1232 (Fla.1992); Holcomb v. Department of Corrections, 609 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We find it unnecessary to determine whether Wuesthoff has satisfied the first two elements because we conclude that it has not established that it has no other adequate remedy. Respondent has acted on the request for a formal hearing, and although Wuesthoff argues that the agency has reached an incorrect result by determining that an informal rather than formal hearing is appropriate, this alleged error can be remedied on appeal from any adverse final order. See, e.g., Iazzo v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, 638 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In light of the adequacy of this remedy, we determine that mandamus will not lie. See Caruso v. Baumle, 776 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Accordingly, we deny the petition without prejudice to Wuesthoff s right to argue that it was improperly denied a formal hearing in any appeal of a final order arising from the informal proceedings to be conducted below.
MINER, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc., 872 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…n earlier appeal in this matter. However, because an adequate remedy can be afforded on plenary appeal if the trial court did indeed err, mandamus relief is likewise unwarranted. See Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Florida Elections Commission, 795 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Moreover, our conclusion in Noack v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 859 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), that sufficient issues of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment on petitioners’ fraud claim does…
-
Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, 221 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…3d 296, 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000)). The duty of the respondent in a mandamus action must be ministerial in nature,-and not discretionary. Wuesthoff Mem’l Hosp. Inc. v. Florida Elections Comm’n, 795 So. 2d 179, 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). A duty is ministerial when “there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.” Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Mandamus is availab…
-
Citizens FOR Lower Taxes, Inc. v. Fla. Elections Comm'n, 920 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. DENIED. See Wuesthoff Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Florida Elections Comm’n, 795 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holcomb v. Dep't OF Corr., 609 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Elio Pino v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 604 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1992)
- Caruso v. Baumle, 776 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Anthony N. Iazzo, Ph.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 638 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)