HOWARD REIN, JR., MARION JENNINGS, J. T. HARPER AND PAT BRADLEY, COMPRISING THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES H. BLANCHARD, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retroactivity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this appeal Howard E. Rein and the other members of the Civil Service Board of the City of Pensacola, Florida seek review of a writ of mandamus entered by a Circuit Judge construing Chapter 63-1775 Laws of Florida, as amended, and commanding the members of said Civil Service Board “to review the circumstances of discharge of petitioner Charles H. Blanchard of the City of Pensacola, Florida, and certify to the Pension Board of the City of Pensacola, Florida, the eligibility of said petitioner for pension benefits for a pension to which his period of service entitled him, effective to the date of said petitioner’s discharge by the Civil Service Board.”
We do not here determine whether or not said act or any amendment thereto is retroactive in application. We do hold, however, that under the facts of this case mandamus does not lie, therefore the peremptory writ here appealed is reversed.
REVERSED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blanchard v. City OF Pensacola, 433 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…Blanchard did not seek an appropriate judicial remedy for the City’s refusal to reopen the case. In that period Blanchard did file a petition for writ of mandamus having that purpose, but this Court held that mandamus did not lie. Rein v. Blanchard, 353 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA, December 20, 1977, reh. den. January 13,1978). Since the 1976 special act did not revest Blanchard’s pension in any sense, but gave him a remedy that he did not effectively enforce before it was withdrawn by the legislature, the circu…