SEE EICHELBERGER
v.
BRUECKHEIMER
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.
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent to review an incomplete Zoning Interpretation Application. The court denied the petition, holding that Respondent has no ministerial duty to review an application that fails to include the written explanation required by the Land Development Code and Development Review Procedures Manual.
Respondent does not have a ministerial duty to review an incomplete application lacking the written explanation required by the LDC and DRPM. Additionally, Respondent does not have a ministerial duty to review an interpretation that has not yet been rendered, and Section 11.01.01 of the LDC does not establish an indisputable legal duty requiring review of an interpretation that has already been through administrative appeal and Circuit Court review.
[1] A writ of mandamus is available to compel officials to perform lawful, ministerial duties.
[2] To obtain a writ of mandamus, a party must demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested action, an indisputable legal duty to perform the action, and the absence of a…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law.”
Establishes the three-part test for mandamus relief that Petitioner must satisfy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner submitted a 2023 Zoning Interpretation Application to Respondent. On November 8, 2023, Respondent notified Petitioner that the application …
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 Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s December 8, 2023 Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking a writ to compel Respondent to review Petitioner’s 2023 Zoning Interpretation Application and Appeal.
Mandamus is the mechanism by which officials can be compelled to perform lawful, ministerial duties. See Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). “A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law.” Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (internal citations omitted).
Mandamus is available only to “enforce an established legal right ... not to establish that right.” Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. An Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724, 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (internal citations omitted). “A ministerial duty or act is one where there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.” Polley v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648, 649 (Fla.1st DCA 2012) (internal citations omitted).
First, Petitioner asserts that Respondent has a ministerial duty to review his Zoning Interpretation Application under Section 11.01.01 of the LDC, which states that “[b]efore an interpretation shall be provided by the Administrator, a Request for Interpretation shall be submitted to the Administrator in accordance with Section 9.1 of the Development Review Procedures Manual.” Id.
Section 9.1 of the Development Review Procedures Manual (DRPM) requires that applicants “identify the specific issue or provision that requires interpretation and explanation and why the interpretation is needed.” Petitioner was notified on November 8, 2023, that his Zoning Interpretation Application was “not seeking for an interpretation of the text of the Land Development code or the Official Zoning Atlas, nor [did] any of the additional materials submitted with the application.” Pet. at Ex.
5. Upon review of the Zoning Interpretation Application of Petitioner’s Appendix, the Court finds that a written explanation, required by 02/28/2024 03:57:38 Page1 Section 11.01.01 of the LDC and defined in Section 9.1 Respondent does not have a ministerial duty to review an incomplete application.1 Second, Petitioner requests that the Court order Respondent “to process and render a decision on Cuculich’s 2023 Zoning Interpretation Appeal.” By seeking a writ of mandamus requiring Respondent to issue an interpretation, Petitioner acknowledges that he has not yet received an interpretation. Respondent does not have a ministerial duty to review an interpretation that has not yet been rendered.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus is hereby DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on the date imprinted with the Judge’s signature.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Eichelberger v. Brueckheimer, 613 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Gordon Polley, M.D., & N. Fla. Surgeons, P.A. v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. AN Accountable Miami-Dade, 208 So. 3d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)