CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
v.
STATE, EX REL. EPICURE, INC.
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 considered whether mandamus was the proper remedy for a relator seeking a liquor license when the city's zoning ordinance prohibited it. The court found that mandamus was not appropriate because the relator's right was not clear and the city council had discretion in granting or refusing the license.
No, mandamus is not the proper remedy. Mandamus lies only to enforce ministerial acts, not those requiring discretion, and the relator's right must be clear. In this case, the city council had discretion, and the relator's right was not clear.
“Mandamus lies to enforce a ministerial act. A ministerial act is distinguished from a judicial act in that in the former the duty is clearly prescribed by law, the discharge of which can be performed without the exercise of discretion. If the discharge of the duty requires the exercise of judgment or discretion the act is not ministerial and mandamus will not lie.”
This quote defines the scope of mandamus and distinguishes it from judicial acts, establishing the core legal principle for the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA relator sought a liquor license, but the property was zoned against liquor sales. The relator claimed the city council assured them the zoning would…
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 Judicial Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] This appeal was taken by the City of Miami Beach from an order granting a peremptory writ of mandamus.
Defendant in error instituted an action of mandamus against the City of Miami Beach to coerce the issuance of a license to sell liquor. The amended alternative writ revealed that thelocus in quo was zoned against the sale of liquor. Relator alleged however, that he expended a great amount of money for lease of the premises and bar equipment upon the assurance being given by a majority of the City Council that the zoning restriction would be altered to allow him to procure a license. It is also claimed that the zoning ordinance is void in that it is arbitrary, unreasonable and unduly restrains relator in the use of his property.
Pending the proceedings the lower court granted an auxiliary writ commanding respondent to conduct a public hearing on relator's application as required by City ordinance No. 406 and exercise their discretion by granting or refusing the license. Thereupon respondent answered the auxiliary writ making a part of the answer transcript of testimony pro and con and their action refusing the license. Additional *Page 257 testimony was taken before the circuit court and peremptory writ ordered.
The only question before us is whether mandamus is the proper remedy. The scope and purpose of mandamus has many times been defined by this Court, hence we need not go elsewhere for guidance. Mandamus lies to enforce a ministerial act. A ministerial act is distinguished from a judicial act in that in the former the duty is clearly prescribed by law, the discharge of which can be performed without the exercise of discretion. If the discharge of the duty requires the exercise of judgment or discretion the act is not ministerial and mandamus will not lie. Mandamus will not issue in case of doubt. The relator's right must be clear. State, ex rel. v. Rose, et al., 123 Fla. 544,167 So. 21; Towle v. State, 3rd Fla. 202; Florida C. P. R. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482, 13 So. 103; State, ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. Helseth, et al., 104 Fla. 208, 140 So. 655; State v. Richards, 50 Fla. 284; 30 So. 152; State v. Florida Coast Line Canal Co. 73 Fla. 1006, 75 So. 582; State v. Atkinson, 97 Fla. 1032, 122 So. 794; Gamble v. State, 61 Fla. 233,34 So. 370; State, ex rel. Pinellas County, v. Sholtz, etal., 115 Fla. 561, 155 So. 736.
Mandamus does not ordinarily lie where relator has another adequate remedy. This Court has held in State, ex rel. v. Rose,supra:
". . . But mandamus should not be resorted to when there is another adequate remedy. And when it comes to the matter of restraining the enforcement of a statute, ordinance or an administrative rule or order, claimed to be illegal, and to threaten irreparable injury to the complainant, the remedy by injunction is ordinarily appropriate and adequate. *Page 258 See 14 R.D.L. 435-442; City of Gainesville v. Gas Electric Power Co., 65 Fla. 404, 52 So. 919; Maxcy v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552,139 So. 121; Van Deman, etc., Co. v. Rast, 240 U.S. 342,36 S.C. 370, 30 L.Ed. 679; Coen v. Lee, 116 Fla. 215,156 So. 747."
In this case the trial judge substituted his judgment for that of the City Council. This we hold was improper in this form of action. The judgment is therefore reversed.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD and BUFORD, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
City of Coral Gables v. State Ex Rel. Worley, 44 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1950)…Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303, 54 A.L.R. 1016, and similar cases. The illegality of zoning ordinances usually have been presented in equitable proceedings." In the case of City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Epircure, Inc., 148 Fla. 255, 4 So. 2d 116, in an opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Adams, we again pointed out that the restrictions of a zoning ordinance should be determined in an equitable proceeding. We in part said, text 148 Fla. 257, 4 So. 2d 117: "The only question befor…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. State of Fla. ex rel. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 108 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…al argu-mens advanced as to the validity of the ordinance, by the appellee need not be considered. It is well recognized in this state that for mandamus to issue the relator’s right must be clear. City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Epicure, Inc., 148 Fla. 255, 4 So. 2d 116, and cases cited therein; State ex rel. Bigler v. City of Miami, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 207. However, it has been held that mandamus is an appropriate remedy to require the issuance of a permit where an ordinance designed to prohibit its…
-
State ex rel. Holland et. al. v. City OF EAU Gallie, 65 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1953)…ourt as a matter of right but only in the exercise of sound judicial discretion and relator is required to establish a clear right to its existence and to show that no other adequate remedy exists. City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Epicure, Inc., 148 Fla. 255, 4 So. 2d 117, and cases therein cited. See also Somlyo v. Schott, Fla., 45 So. 2d 502 and State ex rel. Keen v. Overstreet, Fla., 47 So. 2d 621. Appellants have failed to show that no other adequate remedy exists. In such a situation we are forced…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1916)
- L. Maxcy, Inc. v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Rose, 123 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. Helseth, 104 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1932)
- The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482 (Fla. 1893)
- State v. Richards, 50 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1905)
- State v. Fla. Coast Line Canal & Transp. Co., 73 Fla. 1006 (Fla. 1917)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Tr. Realty Co. v. Atkinson, 97 Fla. 1032 (Fla. 1929)
- State v. Honorable Dave Sholtz, 115 Fla. 561 (Fla. 1934)
- Coen v. Lee, 116 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1933)