CLYDE FUTCH, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, H. V. CARLTON, IRA WILLARD, JIM HURLEY, R. F. HELKEN, J. F. HUKLE AND W. P. MOODY, BEING MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN, AND THE MIAMI CITY GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pension Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., J., and ODOM, ARCHIE M., Associate Judge, concur.
PEARSON, Acting Chief Judge, dissents.
(dissenting).
The appellant as plaintiff brought an action for a declaratory decree against the city and its board of general employees retirement fund. His complaint was dismissed ‘‘with prejudice” after trial. The prayer of the complaint was twofold: 1) that the court determine whether his discharge was valid; 2) that the court determine whether he was entitled under the City of Miami general employees retirement system to benefits for retirement by virtue of an injury received in line of duty.
It is my view that the chancellor should have entered a declaratory decree upon the-subject of the retirement benefits. Cf. Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand. Jury, Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 445; Platt v. General Development Corporation, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 48, 50; North Shore Realty Corporation v. Gallaher, Fla.App. 1957, 99 So.2d 255, 256. See as to pension rights-after discharge. Holcomb v. Hamm, 77 N.D. 154, 42 N.W.2d 70; Creighan v. City of Pittsburgh, 389 Pa. 569, 132 A.2d 867.
PEARSON, Acting Chief Judge
(dissenting).
The appellant as plaintiff brought an action for a declaratory decree against the city and its board of general employees retirement fund. His complaint was dismissed ‘‘with prejudice” after trial. The prayer of the complaint was twofold: 1) that the court determine whether his discharge was valid; 2) that the court determine whether he was entitled under the City of Miami general employees retirement system to benefits for retirement by virtue of an injury received in line of duty.
It is my view that the chancellor should have entered a declaratory decree upon the-subject of the retirement benefits. Cf. Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand. Jury, Fla.1952, 56 So. 2d 445; Platt v. General Development Corporation, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So. 2d 48, 50; North Shore Realty Corporation v. Gallaher, Fla.App. 1957, 99 So. 2d 255, 256. See as to pension rights-after discharge. Holcomb v. Hamm, 77 N.D. 154, 42 N.W. 2d 70; Creighan v. City of Pittsburgh, 389 Pa. 569, 132 A. 2d 867.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Gross, 330 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…conditional variance in this case was, as a matter of law, a proper exercise of the City of Miami Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment’s authority. The denial of the petition for cer-tiorari is, therefore, affirmed. Cf. Aitkins v. Atwood, Fla.App.1960, 124 So. 2d 31. . The Zoning Board of Adjustment granted the variance on the condition that, “. . .if the City determines that they need the spaces because they are lacking spaces to cover the people that are either visiting or living there, the City shall send t…
Authorities Cited
- F. Marion Platt et ux. v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 122 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- N. Shore Realty Corp. v. Gallaher, 99 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)