SIRGANY INTERNATIONAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, 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.
Sirgany International appealed the trial court's denial of its petition for a writ of prohibition against the Miami-Dade Inspector General, seeking to block enforcement of a subpoena for records related to its airport operations. The appellate court denied the appeal, holding that prohibition is unavailable because the Inspector General performs administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial, functions.
A writ of prohibition is not available against the Inspector General because prohibition applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial actions, and the Inspector General exercises only administrative functions and makes recommendations to various boards rather than exercising judicial or quasi-judicial authority.
[1] A writ of prohibition is applicable only in relation to judicial or quasi-judicial actions.
[2] The Office of Inspector General, which makes recommendations to various boards, does not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions, rendering prohibition unavailable…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“prohibition is not appropriately sought against the Inspector General. This is the case as prohibition is applicable only in relation to judicial or quasi-judicial actions.”
Establishes the core holding that prohibition is limited to judicial or quasi-judicial functions and thus unavailable against the Inspector General.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Miami-Dade Office of Inspector General, with authority to investigate county matters and subpoena witnesses and records, sought production of cert…
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 Function cases and more on FLexlaw
FLETCHER, Judge.
Sirgany International, Inc., [Sirgany] has appealed the trial court’s order denying Sirgany’s petition for a writ of prohibition against the Miami Dade Inspector General. We treat Sirgany’s appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and deny the petition.1
The Miami-Dade Office of Inspector General2 has the responsibility to investigate various and sundry county matters, such as activities of contractors, their officers, agents and employees, lobbyists, county staff and elected officials in order to ensure compliance with contract specifications and to detect fraud.3 The Inspector General is appointed by the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics4 and is delegated the power to subpoena witnesses and to require the production of records.5
The Inspector General has sought the production of certain records of Sirgany in relation to Sirgany’s management and operation of its commercial activities at Miami International Airport. Sirgany has resisted producing the records, which resistance includes the filing in the circuit court of a petition for writ of prohibition, attempting to prevent the Inspector General from seeking to enforce the records subpoena.6 The trial court denied Sirga-ny’s prohibition petition and Sirgany has appealed that denial to this court, raising various reasons as to why the subpoena should be quashed.
We reject the appeal without reaching the substantive arguments as prohibition is not appropriately sought against the Inspector General. This is the case as prohibition is applicable only in relation to judicial or quasi-judicial actions. Broward County v. Florida Nat’l Prop., 613 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Koulianos v. Phillips, 516 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). As the Inspector General does not exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions,7 but only makes recommendations to various boards, prohibition is not available. The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
. Sirgany’s appeal was labeled as an appeal of a "non-final” order. Although the order is indeed non-final (at least one interrelated count remains unresolved by the trial court) it is not an appealable order. Rule 9.130, Fla. R.App.P. . Created by Section 2-1076 of the Miami-Dade Code.
. Section 2-1076(c)(8). The above listing is far from complete.
. The Commission is created by Article LXXVIII (Sections 2-1066 through 2-1075) of the Miami-Dade Code.
. Section 2-1076(c)(3).
. The Inspector General enforces subpoena by application to the circuit court. § 2-1076(c)(3).
. See Fisher Island Holdings, LLC v. Miami-Dade County Comm’n on Ethics & Public Trust, 748 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sirgany Int'l, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 887 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…on (circuit court case no. 04-1922 CA32) brought by the Miami-Dade Inspector General to enforce his subpoena seeking certain records of Sirgany. We deny Sirgany’s petition on the merits. As we noted in Sirgany Internat’l, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, 845 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), the Miami-Dade Office of Inspector General has the responsibility to investigate various and sundry county matters, and is delegated the power to subpoena witnesses and to require the production of documents in aid of investigati…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Broward Cnty. v. Fla. Nat'l Props., 613 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Givens v. State, 748 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Koulianos v. Phillips, 516 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)