STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. CARLOS A. MARTINEZ, RELATOR,
v.
FLORIDA DIVISION OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, RESPONDENT
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.
Carlos Martinez sought review of a dismissal of his unemployment benefits appeal for failure to prosecute. The court found that denying Martinez a hearing under these circumstances violated due process, particularly where the hearing notice lacked a required mailing date and Martinez had notified authorities he would be unavailable while traveling.
The court held that under these facts, denying Martinez an appeal constituted a denial of due process under the Florida Constitution. Martinez was entitled to a writ of mandamus to obtain a hearing on his entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari may be treated as a petition for writ of mandamus when appropriate.
[2] Due process requires that a claimant be afforded a hearing on their entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits.
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“We find that the denial of an appeal under the facts of this case constitutes a denial of due process.”
Establishes the court's central holding that dismissal for failure to prosecute violated constitutional due process protections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartinez was ruled ineligible for unemployment benefits on October 22, 1975. He filed an appeal on October 31 and notified the Bureau on November 7 th…
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 Florida Constitution Article I, Section 9 cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari by the claimant, Carlos A. Martinez, seeking review of an order of the Industrial Relations Commission, affirming the decision of the appeals referee dismissing for failure to prosecute, Martinez’ appeal from the claim examiner’s adverse ruling on a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. After considering the record, the petition, the briefs and oral argument, we have determined that the petition for writ of certiorari filed herein, be treated as a petition for writ of mandamus, and we find that Martinez is entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus in this cause.
The record reflects that on October 22, 1975, Martinez was ruled ineligible for unemployment benefits; on October 31, he filed an appeal; and on November 7, he wrote to the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation in Miami, advising that he would be leaving Miami to look for a job, that he would be unable to report to the Bureau on his regularly scheduled days until his return and that “any notification” could be sent to his regular address in Miami. He then left for Brazil.
A hearing on the appeal was scheduled for November 21,1975. Although notice of hearing was allegedly mailed on November 14, respondent concedes that the mailing date of the notice of hearing did not appear on the notice, as required by law. The hearing was held as scheduled. Due to Martinez’ failure to appear, the appeals referee dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute. Notice of the referee’s decision was mailed to Martinez at his last known address on November 24, 1975. Martinez returned to Miami on December 12. He filed an appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission on January 8, 1976, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, since it was not initiated within ten days of the mailing of the referee’s decision.
We find that the denial of an appeal under the facts of this case constitutes a denial of due process. The Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 9, and Article V, Section 1. Therefore, we hold that Martinez is entitled to the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus to provide him with a hearing on his entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits. In view thereof, we assume that such hearing will be provided without the necessity for the issuance of a formal peremptory writ of mandamus.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. William M. Owra v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 351 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ous occasions this court has been presented with the identical jurisdictional issue and we determined that the denial of an appeal under similar factual circumstances amounts to a denial of due process. See State ex rel. Martinez v. Fla. Div., etc., 339 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) and Polatnick v. Fla. Dept. of Commerce, 349 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We find likewise in the ease at bar and hereby treat this cause as a petition for writ of mandamus and hold that petitioner is entitled to the issuance of…
-
McDANIEL v. Career Serv. Comm'n, 379 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…r McDaniel should be allowed an appeal at this time and because of the peculiar fact situation presented, we hold that he should. To deny him a hearing on the facts herein would deny him due process. State ex rel. Martinez v. Department of Commerce, 339 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). MILLS, C. J., and McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.…
-
Polatnick v. Fla. Dep't of Commerce, 349 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…that it lacked jurisdiction thereupon affirming the decision of the appeals referee. After a consideration of the record, the petition for writ of certiorari, the briefs and oral argument, we conclude that State ex rel. Martinez v. Fla. Div., Etc., 339 So. 2d 313 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) is controlling and hereby treat this cause as a petition for writ of mandamus. We find that the denial of an appeal under the facts of this case as argued by [*205] petitioner Polatnick amounts to a denial of due process. See Arti…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence