IRVING YELEN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF MIRAMAR, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND JOHN DEPP AS BUILDING OFFICIAL, APPELLEES
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 affirmed the denial of a mandamus petition seeking a building permit because the municipal ordinance upon which the petitioner relied was never introduced into evidence, making it impossible to determine the legal duty with the requisite certainty.
A mandamus petition for a building permit cannot be granted when the municipal ordinance establishing the legal duty is not in evidence.
[1] A mandamus petition to compel issuance of a building permit requires that the municipal ordinance establishing the city's legal duty be introduced into evidence so that t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYelen sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City of Miramar to issue a building permit. The petitioner offered city council minutes into evidence bu…
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 Legal Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We are constrained to affirm the final judgment of the trial court denying plaintiff’s second amended petition for writ of mandamus for the reason that the right which the petitioner seeks to have enforced, i. e. to receive a building permit, and the legal duty to be performed by the respondent city, i. e. issuance of such permit, cannot be ascertained to the necessary completeness and certainty required by law without a consideration of the language of the municipal ordinance upon which petitioner relies, which ordinance was never put into evidence. 21 Fla.Jur., Mandamus, § 24, et seq.; Haverty v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 258 So. 2d 18; Town of Medley v. Captan, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 449. Absent an examination of the ordinance we are unable to discern any error in the trial court’s consideration of the minutes of the appellee city for the purpose of ascertaining the appellee’s intent. Whether these minutes, which were offered into evidence by the appellant, are at variance with or are intended to resolve an ambiguity in the ordinance cannot be determined without a review and examination of such ordinance. Having otherwise found the denial of the writ did not constitute an abuse of discretion, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CROSS, MAGER, and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haverty v. State, 258 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Town OF Medley v. Caplan, 191 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Morse v. Morse, 191 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)