STATE, EX REL. PINELLAS KENNEL CLUB, INC.,
v.
STATE RACING COMMISSION, ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court awarded a peremptory writ of mandamus, compelling the State Racing Commission to grant a racing permit. The court found that while discretion may exist, the Commission had not presented sufficient legal cause for denial.
Yes, the State Racing Commission may have discretion to deny permits under certain circumstances. However, if this discretion is arbitrarily or erroneously exercised, such action is subject to judicial review by mandamus.
“When discretion is given by law, but is arbitrarily or clearly erroneously exercised or abused by the official action of a board, such as the State Racing Commission, such official action is subject to judicial review on mandamus and redress may be had on such writ, where no other adequate legal remedy exists.”
Establishes the standard for judicial review of administrative discretion via mandamus.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator applied for a racing permit under Chapter 14832, Acts 1931. The State Racing Commission denied the application. The relator then sought a …
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 Administrative Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Relator filed an application for a racing permit under Chapter 14832, Acts 1931. The permit was' denied, and mandamus has been applied for on the theory that the granting of permits when applications are made in proper form, is a non-discretionary mandatory duty on the part of the State Racing Commission under Chapter 14832, supra.
In the present case the Court is of the opinion that no sufficient legal cause for denial of the permit has been made to appear conceding arguendo that the claimed discretion on the part of the State Racing Commission to deny permits, under certain circumstances, exists.
■ When discretion is given by law, but is arbitrarily or clearly erroneously exercised or abused by the official action of a board, such as the State Racing Commission, such official action is subject to judicial review on mandamus and redress may be had on such writ, where no other adequate legal remedy exists. State v. Finley, 30 Fla. 302, 11 Sou. Rep. 500; State v. Kirke, 12 Fla. 278, 95 Am. Dec. 314; *144State ex rel. Tullidge, v. Hollingsworth, 103- Fla. 801, 138 Sou. Rep. 372.
Peremptory writ awarded.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)…95, 91 So. 686; Sirmans v. Owen, 87 Fla. 485, 100 So. 734; State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 103 Fla. 801, 138 So. 372; State ex rel. Hatton v. Joughin, 103 Fla. 877, 138 So. 392; State ex rel. Pinellas Kennel Club v. State Racing Commission, 116 Fla. 143, 156 So. 317. In the same cases and similar ones it was held that where an officer or employee is removed pursuant to purely executive authority, the courts will do no more than examine into the existence of jurisdictional facts to determine only th…
-
State v. Rose, 123 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1936)…andamus proceeding the State Racing Commission could be required to rescind and vacate that portion of one of its rules which it had no lawful authority, to enact; and in State, ex rel. Pinellas Kennel Club, v. State Racing Commission, 116 Fla. 143, 156 So. 317, we held that mandamus would lie to require the issuance of a permit by the Com [*551] mission which it had no discretion under the circumstances to deny, and where no other adequate legal remedy existed. These last four cases represent an extension…
-
State v. Rose, 122 Fla. 227 (Fla. 1935)…ts administrative quasi-legislative (or quasi-executive) powers, is the appropriate remedy where no special statutory method of redress is otherwise available. See: State, ex rel. Pinellas Kennel Club, Inc., v. State Racing Commission, 116 Fla. 143, 156 Sou. Rep. 317. The “racing season” or that period of time within- which racing can only be conducted is prescribed by Section 4 of Chapter 17276, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1935, supra. The 'pertinent part of Section 4, applicable to dog tracks, provides: ■ [*232]…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hollingsworth, 103 Fla. 801 (Fla. 1931)
- State of Fla. ex. rel. J. Dennis Wolfe v. Kirke, 12 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1868)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. George P. Fowler v. Finley, 30 Fla. 302 (Fla. 1892)