B. J. GUILFORD, K. L. HAMILTON, F. EBRON, R. WHITE, E. HAYES, A. MCKAY, W. CARROLL, AND K. W. JONES, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, H. STUART MORRISON, CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND COL. ROY FRAZIER POTTS, MRS. NORA WOMBLE, JAMES T. HURLEY AND T. S. HOUSTON, MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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.
Police officers sought a declaratory decree claiming Civil Service rules granted them permanent status in their positions despite temporary appointments. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the complaint adequately alleged a real controversy within the jurisdiction of declaratory judgment statutes.
The court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a real controversy for determination under Florida's declaratory judgment statute, and therefore the trial judge may not summarily dismiss the complaint based on a failure to state a cause of action.
“It is clear in this case a real controversy exists and therefore, a cause of action was stated on the face of the complaint. This being true, the trial judge may not summarily dismiss the complaint.”
Establishes the legal principle that where a real controversy exists, a declaratory judgment complaint states a cause of action and cannot be summarily dismissed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEight police officers of the City of Miami, who had been performing satisfactorily as Detectives for more than four years under temporary appointments…
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 Cause Of Action Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, B. J., Guilford, K. L. Hamilton, F. Ebron, R. White, E. Hayes, A. McKay, W. Carroll, and K. W. Jones, were plaintiffs in a complaint for declaratory decree. The City of Miami and its Civil Service Board were defendants in the trial court and are appellees here. The appellants are police officers of the City of Miami. The trial judge granted a petition for intervention filed on behalf of certain other police officers of the City who claimed an interest in the subject.
The circumstances of the complaint were that a controversy existed between the plaintiff police, officers and the City of Miami in that the plaintiffs claimed the Civil Service rules granted them permanent status in the position they were occupying under a temporary appointment. The complaint alleged in part:
“That the Plaintiffs at all times material to this action have expected the said Civil Service Board to effectuate their petition and Plaintiffs have appeared before the said Civil Service Board, both in person and by and through their undersigned attorneys, and though admissions were made by all parties that the said encumbents have been performing satisfactorily as Detectives for a period of more than (4) years, the said Civil Service Board has steadfastly refused to make such classification permanent.”
Both the City and the iñtervenors filed motions to dismiss, including in each case a ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. After hearing on the motions, the trial judge entered an order dismissing the cause with prejudice.
Inasmuch as no evidence was presented, it is apparent that the court did not reach the merits of the controversy. Therefore, the only question before us is whether or not the complaint sufficiently stated a controversy for determination under Chapter *4387, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., pertaining to declaratory decrees, judgments and orders. We make this point clear because a good portion of the argument before us has been upon the merits of the controversy which we do not reach.
Section 87.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides that the circuit courts are vested with jurisdiction to declare rights, status or other equitable or legal relations for the purpose of determining the existence of any immunity, power, privilege or right; or any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such immunity, power, privilege or right does or may depend. It is clear in this case a real controversy exists and therefore, a cause of action was stated on the face of the complaint. This being true, the trial judge may not summarily dismiss the complaint. Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, Fla.1952, 56 So. 2d 445; Bell v. Associated Independents, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 904.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McLAUGHLIN v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 191 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…rant it, obtain appropriate and necessary relief. Ready v. Safeway Rock Co., 157 Fla. 27, 24 So. 2d 808; Caldwell v. North, 157 Fla. 52, 24 So. 2d 806.” [*617] See also May v. Holley, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 636; Guilford v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 42. Dismissal of appellant’s cause upon the ground that his case was insufficient to establish his right to relief cannot be equated with a holding that the appellant has no right to be considered for a promotion. The inquiry must be whether or not th…1 / 2
-
Guilford v. City OF Miami, 189 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…ssion of the legal points involved, inasmuch as we find that the chancellor properly determined that the plaintiffs had not made a factual case. Affirmed. . We considered the sufficiency of the complaint in Guilford v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 42.…
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. Saxon, 143 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)