STATE EX REL. THEODORE J. CRANDALL, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL FOX, AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AND CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves a former police officer's attempt to be reinstated to his position through a mandamus action after being terminated for disciplinary reasons. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the action, finding no merit in the officer's claims of procedural or substantive violations.
The appellate court held that the former police officer's contentions regarding the illegality of his removal were not supported by the record.
“We have considered the several contentions made by the appellant; that the action taken against him was contrary to the provisions of the city charter; that he was denied due process of law; that no sufficient ground for removal was established against him; and that the hearing before the personnel board was not fair and impartial; and we conclude that those contentions are not sustained by the record.”
This quote summarizes the appellant's arguments and the court's finding that they were not supported by the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, a police officer, was removed from his position by the police chief for disciplinary reasons. His subsequent appeal to the city personn…
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 Fair And Impartial Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was removed from his position on the police force of the City of Miami Beach for disciplinary reasons by the police chief. His appeal to the city personnel board was denied. Thereafter he filed a mandamus action in the circuit court seeking restoration of his position. That court granted a motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus and dismissed the cause, and the relator appealed. We have considered the several contentions made by the appellant; that the action taken against him was contrary to the provisions of the city charter; that he was denied due process of law; that no sufficient ground for removal was established against him; and that the hearing before the personnel board was not fair and impartial; and we conclude that those contentions are not sustained by the record. No error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from should be and hereby is
Affirmed.