BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
E. A. DOUG HENDRY, SHERIFF OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
The Board of County Commissioners appealed from a writ of mandamus compelling them to supplement the Sheriff's budget under Florida law. The court reversed, holding that mandamus does not lie where adequate administrative remedies are available and have not been exhausted.
Mandamus does not lie where there is another adequate remedy available, including administrative remedies that must be exhausted before resorting to mandamus. The Sheriff failed to exhaust the appeal procedures under F.S.A. 30.49(10) and the administrative procedures under F.S.A. 30.50(4) and F.S.A. 129.06.
[1] Mandamus does not lie where a petitioner has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies.
[2] A statutory administrative remedy must be pursued to completion before seeking a writ of mandamus.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is well settled law in Florida that mandamus does not lie where there is another adequate remedy.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that mandamus is not available when adequate alternative remedies exist.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Sheriff prepared and certified his 1972/73 budget to the Board on June 29, 1972, which was approved and funded. On September 26, 1972, the Sheriff…
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 Adequate Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
NANCE, L. CLAYTON, Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a peremptory Writ of Mandamus entered against the Board of County Commissioners commanding them to issue the Sheriff funds to supplement his 1972/73 budget for salaries and expenses in light of F.S.A. 23.078, passed April 1972, effective July 1, 1972.
The Sheriff had prepared and certified his 1972/73 budget to the Board on June 29, 1972, which was approved and funded.
The Sheriff, by letter, September 26, 1972, requested a budget amendment as provided in F.S.A. 30.49(10). On October 3, 1972, the Board approved a partial supplemental appropriation, and requested at that time, and subsequently, additional accounting information showing the supplemental budget funds needed. The requests were refused by the Sheriff.
The Sheriff elected to bring the remedy of mandamus to compel the performance of the Board and did not pursue administrative remedies as provided in F.S.A. 30.-49(10).
Appellant Board raised the point that mandamus does not lie where the Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We agree.
F.S.A. 30.49(10) specifically provides an administrative remedy to the Sheriff. In the instant case, this procedure was instituted by the Sheriff, by letter, but he did not exhaust the appeal procedures as provided in that statute, nor did he pursue the administrative procedures provided in F.S. A. 30.50(4) and F.S.A. 129.06.
It is well settled law in Florida that mandamus does not lie where there is another adequate remedy. State ex rel. Long v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515, 164 So. 199 (1935). This principal applies to administrative remedies which must be exhausted. City of Miami Beach v. Atheneum, Inc., 254 So. 2d 41 (Fla.App. 3rd 1971). City of Miami Beach v. Braca, 151 So. 2d 669 (Fla.App. 3rd 1963).
It is to be noted that the request by the Sheriff was not a demand for the Board to pay specific amounts as required in F.S.A. 23.078. The request was for an increase over and above previously budgeted funds. It is to be further noted that the Board’s not unreasonable request for additional accounting information was refused by the Sheriff.
Reversed and remanded.
MANN, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1935)
- City OF Miami Beach v. The Atheneum, Inc., 254 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Braca, 151 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)