SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, PETITIONER,
v.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
This Court has no authority to compel a district court of appeal to write an opinion, nor does the instant case meet the criteria for discretionary review affecting constitutional officers.
The School Board petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel a district court to write an opinion replacing its summary affirmance of a circuit court'…
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 Discretionary Review cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Acting Chief Justice.
The School Board of Pinellas County petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Second District Court of Appeal to write an opinion replacing its decision in School Board of Pinellas County v. Enterprise Building Corp., 462 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The district court, in reviewing a summary judgment entered by the circuit court, rendered the following decision:
Affirmed on the authority of Kelly [Kelley] v. School Board of Seminole County, 435 So. 2d 804 (Fla.1983), and Havatampa Corp. v. McElvy, Jennewein, Stefany & Howard, Architect/Planners, Inc., 417 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
We find no authority for this Court to require a written opinion. We note the reason and necessity for district courts to render summary decisions are explained in Whipple v. State, 431 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
The school board also requests that we take jurisdiction of this cause on the ground that the decision affects a class of constitutional officers. Article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution allows this Court to take jurisdiction of a cause in which the district court opinion “expressly affects a class of constitutional officers.” The term “expressly,” in this context, means within the written district court opinion. Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla.1980). Clearly, there is nothing in the instant district court decision that affects other school board members as constitutional officers.
For the reasons expressed, the petition for writ of mandamus and for discretionary review is denied.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kenyon, 882 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2004)…does not alter this Court’s previous conclusion that it lacks the authority to require a district court to write an opinion when the district court has determined that no opinion is necessary. See Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Co. v. District Ct. of Appeal, 467 So. 2d 985, 986 (Fla.1985) (stating that the Court could “find no authority for this Court to require a written opinion” and denying petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct the district court to write an opinion replacing its prior de…
-
Davis v. State, 982 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ef. On a number of occasions our Supreme Court has indicated that there is no fundamental right to an appellate opinion. See, e.g., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kenyon, 882 So. 2d 986 (Fla.2004); Sch. Bd. of Pinellas County v. Dist. Court of Appeal, 467 So. 2d 985 (Fla.1985). Nothing contained in rule 9.141(b)(2)(D), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, changes that in the least. Thus, Mr. Davis has no “clear legal right to the performance of a clear legal duty” supporting his attempt to compel a written opi…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 385 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1980)
- Eoghan N. Kelley v. Sch. Bd. OF Seminole Cnty., 435 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1983)
- Whipple v. State, 431 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Havatampa Corp. v. McELVY, 417 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)