STATE EX REL. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, ORLANDO LODGE NO. 25, AND DWIGHT CHASTAIN, ET AL., RELATORS,
v.
CITY OF ORLANDO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
The court denied a petition for mandamus seeking to compel the City of Orlando to engage in collective bargaining with the Fraternal Order of Police, holding that mandamus is not the proper remedy when the duty sought to establish is not yet clearly established and an adequate alternative remedy exists.
A petition for mandamus will not lie to establish a legal right that has not yet been clearly established, particularly when an adequate alternative remedy such as a declaratory judgment action is available.
[1] Mandamus is not the appropriate remedy to establish a legal right not yet clearly established when an adequate alternative remedy, such as a declaratory judgment action,…
[2] The writ of mandamus will not issue to compel performance of a continuous series of acts requiring ongoing supervisory jurisdiction by the court.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“The petition for alternative writ of mandamus seeks more to establish a legal right than to enforce a clear legal duty already established. Traditionally, such is not the proper function of the writ of mandamus.”
The court's explanation of why mandamus is inappropriate in this context.
The Fraternal Order of Police, Orlando Lodge No. 25, and police officers sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City of Orlando to engage in collecti…
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 Alternative Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
The petition for alternative writ of mandamus seeks more to establish a legal right than to enforce a clear legal duty already established. Traditionally, such is not the proper function of the writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Long v. Carey, 1935, 121 Fla. 515, 164 So. 199; State ex rel. Topp v. Board of Electrical Examiners, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 583; Slaughter v. State ex rel. Harrell, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 126. It further appears that relators have an adequate remedy under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Chapter 86, F.S. 1971 and it has been held that the writ will not issue when there is another adequate remedy available. See, e. g., Reese v. Golden, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 490. Finally, it affirmatively appears that the legal duty which relators ask this court to command the respondents to perform is not a single act but rather a continuous and continuing series of acts which would require this court to exercise a continuous supervisory jurisdiction to insure that the acts were performed correctly. The writ is *403not appropriate for this purpose. State ex rel. West v. Fla. Coast Line Canal & Transp. Co., 1917, 73 Fla. 1006, 75 So. 582. For these reasons severally, the petition for alternative writ of mandamus is denied, but without prejudice to the rights of the relators to seek, in an appropriate proceeding, an adjudication upon the question of whether the respondents have a legal duty to enter into bilateral collective bargaining negotiations with relators.
CROSS, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Town OF Manalapan v. Morton Rechler and Beverly Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ompliance with the Public Records Law, together with a showing of likelihood of future violations. Mandamus would not be an adequate remedy, as the writ will not lie to prevent future harm. State ex rel. Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Orlando, 269 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). 548 So. 2d at 680-81. In Orlando, this court stated that where the petitioner asks the court to perform not a single act, but rather a continuous supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that the acts requested are performed correctl…
-
Local 532 OF the Am. Fed'n OF State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 273 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…try of a declaratory decree. Platt v. General Development Corporation, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 48; Sheldon v. Powell, 1930, 99 Fla. 782, 128 So. 258. See also State ex rel. Fraternal Order of Police, Orlando Lodge No. 25, et al. v. City of Orlando, 269 So. 2d 402, Fourth District Court of Appeal, opinion filed November 22, 1972. The final judgment does not dispose of the case on the basis that the cause was not a proper one for declaratory relief; on the contrary, the final judgment undertakes a disposition…
-
Hattie Daniels v. William Bryson & the Miami Ass'n of Fire Fighters Local 587, 548 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ce with the Public Records Law, together with a showing of [*681] likelihood of future violations. Mandamus would not be an adequate remedy, as the writ will not lie to prevent future harm. State ex rel. Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Orlando, 269 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), cert. denied, 276 So. 2d 54 (Fla.1973). While injunctive relief is available in appropriate circumstances, we conclude that appellees were not entitled to a permanent injunction in the present case. That is so because the inves…
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
- State v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1935)
- State v. Fla. Coast Line Canal & Transp. Co., 73 Fla. 1006 (Fla. 1917)
- State of Fla. on the relation of I. H. Topp v. Bd. OF Elec. Exam'rs FOR Jacksonville Beach, 101 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Slaughter v. State ex rel. David E. Harrell & Harold Haimowitz, 245 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Reese v. Golden, 209 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)