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 respondents to open school choice enrollment at Seminole Heights Elementary School and comply with certain school board policies. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, finding it was not facially sufficient because petitioner failed to allege a specific, indisputable legal duty that respondents had failed to perform.
The court held that the petition was not facially sufficient and dismissed it without prejudice. The petition failed to allege a specific, indisputable legal duty that respondents had failed or refused to perform, and a writ of mandamus is not the proper mechanism to establish a legal right or create a ministerial duty.
[1] A writ of mandamus may be used to compel officials to perform lawful, ministerial duties.
[2] A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to the performance of the requested act, an indisputable legal duty, and the absence of an a…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 required for mandamus relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on December 4, 2023, seeking to compel respondent to open controlled open enrollment (allowing studen…
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
ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s December 4, 2023 Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 6) seeking a writ to compel Respondent to open School Choice for Seminole Heights Elementary School and direct Respondents to comply with Hillsborough County Public School Board (HCPSB) Policies 5120, 5780, and 0130.
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). When receiving a petition for a writ of mandamus, the trial court’s “initial task is assessing the petition to determine whether it is facially sufficient. If it is not facially sufficient, the court may dismiss the petition.” Id. 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). Petitioner asserts that Respondents have a ministerial duty regarding “controlled open enrollment” which allows students to attend schools outside of the area for which they have been zoned. However, the Petition fails to allege a specific, indisputable legal duty that Respondents have failed or refused to perform. A writ of mandamus is not the proper mechanism to establish a legal right, nor to create a ministerial duty. The Court finds that the Petition and attached appendix are not facially sufficient. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
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)