STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. M. G. MURRAY, RELATOR,
v.
L. L. LEE, AS CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; GERALD L. ASH, AS DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; A. E. FULLER, AS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
A Florida city employee challenged his removal from a civil service position as General Foreman of Parks under the city charter. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision upholding the removal, finding that the city properly followed the required procedural protections under the charter.
The court held that the City of Miami properly removed Murray in compliance with all procedural requirements of Section 65(a) of the City Charter, and that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to overturn the removal because the relator failed to show a clear legal right to the office.
“Any officer or employee in the classified service may be removed, suspended, laid off, or reduced in grade by the city manager or by the head of the department in which he is employed, for any cause which will promote the efficiency of the service; but he must first be furnished with a written statement of the reasons therefor and be allowed a reasonable time for answering such reasons in writing”
Establishes the procedural requirements for removal of classified civil service employees under the city charter
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurray was employed by the City of Miami as General Foreman of Parks under the civil service regulations. The Director of Public Welfare suspended Mur…
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 Civil Service Regulations cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order quashing an alternative writ of mandamus.
*259The petition for the original writ disclosed among other things that relator was employed by respondent City as General Foreman of Parks and was so classied under the civil service regulation of said City.
Section 65 (a) Charter of the City reads as follows:
“Section 65
“(a) Any officer or employee in the classified service may be removed, suspended, laid off, or reduced in grade by the city manager or by the head of the department in which he is employed, for any cause which will promote the efficiency of the service; but he must first be furnished with a written statement of the reasons therefor and be allowed a reasonable time for answering such reasons in writing, which answer, if he so requests, shall (so far as the same is relevant and pertinent) be made a part of the records of the board; and he may be suspended from the date when such written statement of reason is furnished him. No trial or examination of witness shall be required in such case except in the discretion of the officer making the removal; in all cases provided for in this paragraph the action of the City Manager or head of the department shall be final.”
Pursuant to same the Director of Public Welfare suspended relator on written charges of disobedience and neglect of duty. Relator answered the charges and a trial was had, according to the City Charter which resulted in relator’s removal.
The trial judge stated in the order:
“The Court finds that the Relator was given a written statement of the reasons of his suspension by the Director of Public Welfare, Gerald L. Ash, was *260likewise given an opportunity to be heard in his defense, and a trial was held and the Charter provisions of Section 65 (a) above set forth was in all respects complied with.”
“It should be remembered that mandamus is an extra-ordinary remedy and the Relator must show a clear legal right to the performance by the Respondent of the particular duty in question, and that if it were a doubtful question, the burden being upon the Relator to show a clear right to the office, this doubt should be resolved in favor of Respondents.”
The judgment of the lower court was correct, see State, ex rel. v. Rose, et al., 123 Fla. 544, 167 So. 21; and City of Miami Beach v. State, ex rel. Epicure, Inc., and cases there cited decided at this term.
. The judgment is affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Coral Gables v. State Ex Rel. Worley, 44 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1950)…te ex rel. Epircure, Inc., 148 Fla. 255, 4 So. 2d 116, in an opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Adams, we again pointed out that the restrictions of a zoning ordinance should be determined in an equitable proceeding. We in part said, text 148 Fla. 257, 4 So. 2d 117: "The only question before us is whether mandamus is the proper remedy. The scope and purpose of mandamus has many times been defined by this Court, hence we need not go elsewhere for guidance. Mandamus lies to enforce a ministerial act. A minister…
-
State ex rel. Holland et. al. v. City OF EAU Gallie, 65 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1953)…er of right but only in the exercise of sound judicial discretion and relator is required to establish a clear right to its existence and to show that no other adequate remedy exists. City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Epicure, Inc., 148 Fla. 255, 4 So. 2d 117, and cases therein cited. See also Somlyo v. Schott, Fla., 45 So. 2d 502 and State ex rel. Keen v. Overstreet, Fla., 47 So. 2d 621. Appellants have failed to show that no other adequate remedy exists. In such a situation we are forced to the conclu…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rose, 123 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1936)