POLICE PENSION BOARD, CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, PETITIONER/APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER M. NEILSON, RESPONDENT/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 Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the Police Pension Board's petition for writ of certiorari, finding competent evidence supported the circuit court's determination and no fundamental error in law application.
A writ of certiorari is denied when the circuit court's decision is supported by competent evidence and contains no material fundamental errors in applying the law.
[1] In certiorari review of administrative or quasi-judicial decisions, the appellate court examines whether competent evidence supports the lower court's determination and w…
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 intelligenceThe Police Pension Board appealed and petitioned for certiorari review of a circuit court determination regarding Christopher M. Neilson.…
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 Competent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These are consolidated cases consisting of an appeal and a petition for writ of certiorari. Having determined that certiorari is the appropriate vehicle for review of the matter in issue we dismiss the appeal.
Petitioner was afforded procedural due process in the circuit court. Accordingly, we have examined the record to determine: (1) whether there was any competent evidence to support the trial court’s determination (and we emphasize that we are not here concerned with whether there was substantial competent evidence); and (2) whether there were material fundamental errors in applying the law (which requires more than a demonstration of mere error). Dooley v. Culver, 392 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The numbered phrases define the two aspects of the term “essential requirements of the law” that frequently appear in the jurisprudence. Put another way, after examining for procedural due process we determine whether the circuit court “applied the correct law.” City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla.1982).
The record having disclosed competent evidence to support the determination by the circuit court and no fundamental error in application of the law having been demonstrated, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
DOWNEY, HERSEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- Dooley v. Culver, 392 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)