CAROL CITY UTILITIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; THOMAS F. CARNEY, JAMES C. EDGERTON, BERNARD JANIS, WILLIAM J. H. TAYLOR AND SAM WEISSEL, EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A CLAIMANT TO THE OFFICE OF, MEMBER OF AN AS TO THE PERSONS COLLECTIVELY PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE AND ACT AS THE "METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER BOARD"; AND THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A BODY CORPORATE INCORPORATED BY ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Carol City Utilities challenged an order by the Dade County Water and Sewer Board through a declaratory judgment action. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that declaratory relief was not available as a substitute for the exclusive remedy of certiorari to review administrative agency orders.
Declaratory relief is not available as a substitute for certiorari when a plaintiff seeks to review an order of an administrative agency acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Certiorari is the sole remedy available for such review, and the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies does not apply only when challenging the validity of an entire void proceeding.
“it is still an action to review an order of an administrative agency acting in a "quasi-judicial capacity".”
The trial judge's characterization of the action, which the appellate court agreed was the fundamental flaw with plaintiff's complaint.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarol City Utilities filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief to challenge an order issued by the Dade County Water and Sewer Board regarding a ra…
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 Declaratory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by Carol City Utilities, Inc. whose complaint seeking a declaratory decree was dismissed in the circuit court. The appeal was first lodged in the Supreme Court of Florida upon the jurisdictional basis that the decree necessarily passed upon the validity of certain State statutes because the plaintiff had asked the circuit court to declare the statutes unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction and transferred the appeal to this court.
We are presented with the question as to whether declaratory relief was available to this plaintiff under the allegations of its complaint. As to this question the trial judge stated:
“The suit seeks a declaratory decree or judgment as to the validity, scope and effect of an order on rate complaint (Exhibit #4, attached to the complaint) of the Dade County Water and Sewer Board and, incident thereto, a declaration as to the validity and construction of certain designated sections of the Home Rule Charter, as well as certain ordinances and resolutions of the Metropolitan Dade County Commission (all of which are attached to the complaint as exhibits).
******
“The plaintiff is unhappy with the order and urges its invalidity on several grounds; most, if not all, of which involve a judicial construction (or determination of validity) of the Charter provisions, statutes, ordinances, resolutions, and other indicia of governmental action, referred to in plaintiff’s complaint. However, and this is most important, it is still an action to review an order of an administrative agency acting in a “quasi-judicial capacity”.
We affirm upon authority of the rule stated in Frix v. Beck, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 81, 83; Bloomfield v. Mayo, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 417, 421; City of Miami v. Eldredge, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 169, 170; Teston v. City of Tampa, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 593, 595.
The appellant relies heavily upon the opinion in the case of Wood v. Twin Lakes Mobile Homes Village, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 738. We believe that this opinion lays down a rule which is not applicable to the instant appeal. The holding in Wood v. Twin Lakes Mobile Homes Village is that although a plaintiff is ordinarily required to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to seeking relief in the courts from administrative orders, that requirement will not prevent recourse to the courts for the purpose of challenging the validity of the entire order. It is apparent that the reason behind this holding is that one need not do a useless thing, i. e., participate in a void proceeding.
The principle is not applicable in the instant case because here the plaintiff sought to use the declaratory decree statute as a substitute for certiorari in order to review an administrative order. Under such circumstances, certiorari is the sole remedy available and there is no question of the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…t also by the availability of certiorari to review quasi-judicial agency action. Declaratory relief was held “not a substitute” for certiorari, the “sole remedy” for review of quasi-judicial administrative action. Carol City Util., Inc. v. Dade Co., 143 So. 2d 828, 829 (Fla.3d DCA 1962), cert. disch., 152 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1963). . Charbonier required the Division of Beverage of the Department of Business Regulation to conduct a judicial-type hearing before making an “executive decision” in a license revocatio…
-
The Sch. Bd. OF Leon Cnty. v. Mitchell, 346 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…egislature in 1961, the litigation in the Teston case began prior to the passage of § 120.30 which section was never discussed by the court. . City of Miami v. Eldredge, 126 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1961); Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Dade County, 143 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1962), cert. disch., 152 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1963). In the latter case, the Third District noted that certiorari was the sole remedy available, and there was no question of the exhaustion of [*566] administrative remedies. Accord, School B…
-
The Sch. Bd. OF Flagler Cnty. v. Hauser, 293 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1974)…first place, a declaratory action was not the correct method to review such alleged action of the school board. As the keen analysis of Third District Chief Judge Tillman Pearson reflected in his lucid opinion in Carol City Utilities v. Dade County, 143 So. 2d 828 (Fla.App.3d 1962), the declaratory decree statute is not a substitute for certiorari to review an administrative order of a state board or agency; certiorari to the district court is the sole remedy. To like effect is Adams, supra, and other cases c…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bloomfield v. Mayo, 119 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Waiter Wood v. Twin Lakes Mobile Homes Vill., Inc., 123 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Frix v. Beck, 104 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- City OF Miami v. Carlton, 126 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Teston v. City OF Tampa, 133 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)