JOHN MONEYHUN, APPELLANT,
v.
E. WILSON PURDY, DIRECTOR, DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, APPELLEE
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.
A former Dade County Sheriff's Deputy sought mandamus to overturn his dismissal, alleging perjured testimony and prosecutorial misconduct at his administrative hearing. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's denial of the mandamus petition, holding that reinstatement would be a discretionary act and that the petitioner had adequate alternative remedies available.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the alternative writ of mandamus, holding that reinstatement would be a discretionary act rather than a ministerial duty, that mandamus requires a clear legal right with no other adequate remedy available, and that the petitioner had adequate alternative legal remedies available.
[1] Mandamus is a remedy to command the performance of a ministerial act that a petitioner has a right to demand.
[2] A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must demonstrate a clear legal right to its issuance and the absence of any other adequate legal remedy.
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“mandamus is a remedy to command performance of a ministerial act which the petitioner who has been deprived of that ministerial act has a right to demand. There must be a showing of a clear legal right to the issuance of the writ and that no other adequate remedy exists.”
Establishes the legal standard for mandamus requiring both a clear legal right and absence of adequate alternative remedies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Moneyhun, a Dade County Sheriff's Deputy, was dismissed on April 7, 1970, for alleged conduct unbecoming a county employee based on taking guns f…
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 Discretionary Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-petitioner John Moneyhun, a former Dade County Sheriff’s Deputy, seeks review of a circuit court order dated July 30, 1971, which denied his petition for an alternative writ of mandamus. The petition was filed in July, 1971. It prayed that he be reinstated with full rights. It alleged that the witnesses against him Charles Celona and Charles Rogers perjured themselves at the evidentiary hearing before the hearing examiner, and that Rogers would so testify.
The underlying facts are not disputed. On April 7, 1970, Moneyhun was dismissed from his employment as a deputy sheriff by appellee-respondent Sheriff E. Wilson Purdy, with dismissal being effective that day. The reasons given were that Money--hun had been “guilty of conduct unbecoming an employee of the County” allegedly because in early October, 1968, while on duty he took one or more guns from the Seminole Gun Shop, 3214 N.W. 14th Street, Miami, Florida, without authorization, following a burglary of that store. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal and at the evidentiary hearing Charles Ce-lona and Deputy Rogers testified. In June, 1970, the hearing examiner sustained the action of the Sheriff in dismissing the petitioner. A grand larceny charge against Moneyhun was later brought and dismissed.
The circuit court issued a rule nisi. Respondent filed a response and legal memorandum. The court entered a final order discharging the rule and denying the alternative writ, relying upon O’Brien v. Campbell, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 672 and State ex rel. Eldredge v. Evans, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 403.
Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing without an evidentiary hearing his petition for mandamus where: (1) the sworn petition alleged that respon*506dent used perjured testimony in the eviden-tiary hearing before the examiner, (2) appellant proffered that the county attorney wilfully suppressed statements before the hearing examiner, which statements would have exonerated the appellant of the charges of “conduct unbecoming a county employee,” and (3) that the conduct of the respondent and county attorney was arbitrary and abusive. Before the circuit court, petitioner further argued and proffered that he did not and could not have known that the testimony was perjured until well after the time for filing a petition for certiorari (directed to review the decision of the hearing examiner under the Code of Metropolitan Dade County § 2-47) had elapsed.
Appellee contends that the circuit court correctly denied the petition for the alternative writ. In particular, appellee states that: mandamus is a discretionary writ; a clear legal right to mandamus must be shown; the writ can not be used to control discretion; and mandamus does not properly issue where facts are disputed. Lastly, appellees argue that the court below relied upon these rules to hold that mandamus can not be a substitute for certiorari to review administrative proceedings and petitioner did not show that there was no other adequate legal remedy.
We express the view that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the circuit court committed reversible error in entering an order discharging the rule and denying the alternative writ of mandamus.
In State ex rel. Eldredge v. Evans, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 403, at 405, the court explained that mandamus is a remedy to command performance of a ministerial act which the petitioner who has been deprived of that ministerial act has a right to demand. There must be a showing of a clear legal right to the issuance of the writ and that no other adequate remedy exists.
The rehiring of Moneyhun by the sheriff would be a discretionary act. Respondent has argued, in fact, that the sheriff lacks the power to rehire the former deputy, and we have found little refutation of this point.
The respondent alleged in its response filed in the circuit court that petitioner had an adequate remedy at law; we are inclined to agree.
Therefore, we affirm the order appealed without prejudice to petitioner seeking such other relief as he is disposed to pursue.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shevin v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 333 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1976)…; City of Jacksonville v. Giller, 102 Fla. 92, 135 So. 549 (1931), so relief by mandamus is unavailable unless “no other adequate remedy exists.” State ex rel. Blatt v. Panelfab Int’l Corp., 314 So. 2d 196, 198 (Fla.App.3d 1975); Moneyhun v. Pur-dy, 258 So. 2d 505 (Fla.App.3d 1972). We proceed on an assumption that petitioners might have invoiced the jurisdiction of this Court by timely filing 3 their petitions here, so that they had an adequate means of raising in this Court the issues sought to be raised by…
-
Comcoa, Inc. v. The Honorable Jack M. COE, 587 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ge as to which, under familiar principles, mandamus would not lie.4 Compare, e.g., Sandegren v. State ex rel. Sarasota County Pub. Hosp. Bd., 397 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1981) (mandamus lies to compel performance of clear legal duty) with Moneyhun v. Purdy, 258 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (mandamus not available to compel discretionary act). See generally 35 Fla.Jur.2d Mandamus and Prohibition §§ 30-34 (1982). We find to the contrary that the issuance of the writ by the trial court under 78.068 is mandatory or mini…
-
State v. Panelfab Int'l Corp., 314 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…that no other adequate remedy exists. State ex rel. Eldredge v. Evans, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 403; O’Brien v. Campbell, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 672; State ex rel. Lane v. Dade County, Fla.App.1972, 258 So. 2d 347; Moneyhun v. Purdy, Fla.App.1972, 258 So. 2d 505. As respondent correctly alleged in its motion to quash alternative writ of mandamus, it is apparent that relator Blatt has failed to allege in his petition that he is without adequate remedies at law or in equity, nor does the petition on its face…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Walton Medders v. State, 102 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- O'Brien v. Campbell, 118 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)