ERROL ALVEY, CHARLES M. BARON, ET AL.,
v.
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH
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 appellate decision reviews a circuit court's approval of a quasi-judicial administrative determination by the City of North Miami Beach. The court upheld the city's decision, finding it supported by competent substantial evidence, compliant with the essential requirements of law, and procedurally fair under due process standards.
The court affirmed the city's determination, holding that it was supported by competent substantial evidence, met the essential requirements of law, and provided procedural due process by sufficiently disclosing ex parte communications between City Council members and representatives before the final vote was taken.
[1] On review of a quasi-judicial administrative determination, a circuit court must determine if the decision is supported by competent substantial evidence, if the essentia…
[2] Competent substantial evidence is defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“On review of a quasi-judicial administrative determination rendered by a local government agency, the circuit court must resolve three issues: 1) whether the decision is supported by competent substantial evidence; 2) whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed; and 3) whether due process has been accorded.”
Establishes the three-part standard for reviewing quasi-judicial administrative determinations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a petition for writ of certiorari challenging an administrative decision rendered by the City of North Miami Beach. The city council…
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.
Beforé SCHLESINGER, CYNAMON, and WOLFSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
v T—’I 94 P000’! K0003 F-80’! ~-.pr, 3g_93f’;1?"§'€v ""1gI';/5 " E2 ' .;/ v ‘$5; .3, oii -I» "$3M I § 33$“? +f,:o1.\‘<I 3“€°§1” I S‘ <‘§,‘.I [*2] 05—20—’l4 14:25 FROlil— I-194 P0002/0003 F-301 U cnsswumssnt t2-35: AP On. review of a quasi“-judicial administrative deterntination rendered by a local government agency, the circuit court must resolve three issues: 1) whether the decision is supported by competent. substantial evidence; 2) whether -the essential requirements of the law have been observed; and 3) whether due process has been accorded. City ofDeerffield Beach v. Valiant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982); Florida Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania Beach, 761 So. 2d 1089, 1092 (Fla. 2000); lfiroward GHQ). v. GB. I/. Int’i, L!(i., 787 So. 2d 838, 843 (Fla. 2001). This Court may only ascertaitt if evidence presented to the City Council constitutes competent substantial evidence. Competent substantial evidence must “[b]e such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind vvould accept as adequate to support $1 conclusion." The Court is limited to detetntining whether the findings and decision below were supported by competent substantial evidence. De Groot v.' Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957). This Court determines that based on the record before it, the evidence ptesented constituted competent substtmtial evidence. - ' This Court performs a limited review to determine whether Respondent observed the essential requirements of the law. Only a miscaniage ofjustice, not it legal error, may 00ItSIill1I6 a failure to observe the essential requirements of the law. (>_i.13’.I'. Im"l. Ltal, 787 So. 2d at 843- 844. Such s perceived error in law must approach fundamental clefectivettess or unjttstness. See Miami-Dade Cniy. v. Omnipoint Holdings, Ina, 863 So. 2d I95, 200 (Fla. 2003). This Court detennines that based on the record ‘before it, the essential requirements of the law have been met. I t [*3] O5—20—’ ‘I4 34:26 FROi‘*i— T—'| 94 POOU3/0003 P301 5” ‘ "l "CASENUMBBR; 12-35|AP This Court d¢terrniries_ that proccdura.l duo process was %1(1¢01'dBd by sllfficiently disclosing ex-parte communica-ti0n_S between City Council Members, ropresflnffiiivfis Of I116 II]i¢E‘V€110i‘ and zncmbc1's of thdpublic pursuant to the obligations sot forth both in the City of North Beach Resolution R95-24_and §286.0115(l)(¢), Fla. Stat. (2012), W501‘ to “W final ‘/0173 being taken. _ V Accordingly, the issues having been resolved, the P,etiii0n_fo1' Writ of Ccrtiorari is
DENIED.
o Copies furnished to: _ Charles M.'Baron, Esq. Darcee S. Sicgci, Esq. Rod A. Fciner, Esq; V
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)
- Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V. Int'l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2001)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. City OF Dania, 761 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2000)