DONALD H. ROSS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
C. T. MCCRIMMON ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1970-03-31
No. 69-706
Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
233 So. 2d 411 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial judge was correct in summarily denying the appellants' request for a writ of mandamus.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellants, instructional employees, sought a writ of mandamus to compel appellees to issue them continuing contracts. The contracts, prepared by the …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants ultimately sought an alternative writ of mandamus in the trial court to require the appellees to issue to them continuing contracts as instructional employees of a junior college. The trial judge summarily denied them relief, and we affirm.

The contracts submitted were prepared by the Commissioner of Education, pursuant to the provisions of § 231.36(3) (a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. They were submitted by the appellees [trustees] in accordance with § 231.36(3) (a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The contracts were unacceptable to the appellants, they contending that certain of the provisions were illegal and void, and they returned same without signatures. Upon notification of discharge, appellants sought to require the appellees to issue to them not the contracts as tendered, prepared under the direction of the Commissioner of Education, but contracts as amended in accordance with a memorandum they had submitted setting forth certain alleged illegal provisions of the tendered contracts.

No error has been made to appear. First, the trustees were not empowered to give what the alternative writ sought. State ex rel. Burr v. Jacksonville Terminal Company, 82 Fla. 255, 89 So. 641; Dance v. City of Dania, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 697; 21 Fla.Jur., Mandamus, § 11. Secondly, the appellants have failed to demonstrate a clear legal duty on the appellees to issue to them the contracts they sought. State ex rel. McCoy v. Bell, Fla. 1956, 91 So.2d 193; Dance v. City of Dania, supra; Ferris v. Board of Public Instruction of Sumter County, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 389; 21 Fla.Jur., Mandamus, § 29.

Therefore, the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Sandpiper BAY, Inc. v. LaCHANCE, 384 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
    …ect building permit. Consequently, the order of the trial court denying the writ was correct. State, ex rel. McCoy v. Bell, 91 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1956); City of Hallandale v. State, ex rel. Segall, 322 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Ross v. McCrimmon, 233 So. 2d 411 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). Since the foregoing determination is dis-positive of this appeal, the points raised by appellant are rendered moot. AFFIRMED. DOWNEY, J., and DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw