WALT P. DAVIES, APPELLANT,
v.
O. D. HOWELL, JR., AS SENIOR JUDGE AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Walt Davies, dismissed from his job as a juvenile court counselor, appealed to the Civil Service Board but was found in default when the Board held a hearing in his absence after denying his postponement request. Davies subsequently was acquitted of the underlying criminal charge. The court affirmed the dismissal of his mandamus action.
The trial court properly quashed the alternative writ of mandamus. Davies's failure to appear at the hearing, his failure to personally request a postponement, and his failure to pursue certiorari as the proper appellate remedy were dispositive.
“Certiorari would have been the proper and traditional method of appeal.”
Establishes that Davies pursued the wrong appellate remedy by filing mandamus instead of certiorari, which was the appropriate procedure to challenge the Civil Service Board decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavies was dismissed from his position as counselor on February 2, 1965. He appealed to the Civil Service Board, which initially scheduled a hearing f…
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 Administrative Law cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant-relator below, Walt P. Davies, was dismissed from his job as counselor of the Hillsborough County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on February 2, 1965, by the appellee. Appellant filed an appeal with the Civil Service Board of Hillsborough County. Prior to said hearing before that Board, appellant was charged with the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Both sides agree that the criminal charge involved precisely the same facts as those involved •in appellant’s dismissal.
The trial on the criminal charge was originally set for April 16, 1965. Appellant was advised by the Civil Service Board on March 18, 1965, that his hearing before the board would be postponed until after the criminal trial. On April 5, 1965 appellant was notified by the Civil Service Board that his hearing before that board was set for April 22, 1965, eight days after the scheduled criminal trial.
I-Iowever, on April 16, 1965 the criminal trial was postponed, ultimately to July 13, 1965. On April 16 and April 20, 1965, appellant notified the Civil Service Board of the postponement and requested a further postponement of the hearing before that board. On April 23, 1965, appellant was advised by letter that his requested postponement was denied; that the hearing had been held in his absence; and that his dismissal had been affirmed.
Appellant was acquitted of the criminal charge after trial.
The Civil Service Board ceased to exist on June 24, 1965, the effective date of repeal of the Civil Service Acts in effect up to that date. A completely new Civil Service Act became effective on June 25, 1965, Laws 1965, c. 65-697, with a new board taking office on August 27, 1965. The termination of the Civil Service Board on June 24, 1965, was 63 days after the April 22, 1965 hearing affirming appellant’s dismissal.
Walt P. Davies did not appear or attend the Civil Service hearing on April 22, 1965, to defend or ask personally for a postponement until after his criminal trial. He did not appeal the decision of the Civil Service Board by Certiorari, which he could have done. Certiorari would have been the proper and traditional method of appeal.
We hold that the trial judge properly quashed the Alternative Writ of Mandamus.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anoll v. Pomerance, 363 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1978)…uished from executive, when notice and hearing are required and the judgment of the board is contingent on the showing made at the hearing. In such cases, certiorari, not mandamus, should be employed as the proper method of review. Davies v. Howell, 192 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in granting the petition for writ of mandamus upon grounds which were reviewable only by timely petition for writ of certiorari and reverse the judgment of the trial court. In view…
-
Interlandi v. Town OF Lantana, 46 Fla. Supp. 210 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. 1977)…DANIEL T. K. HURLEY, Circuit Judge. Salvatore Interlandi has brought a petition for certiorari as permitted by Davies v. Howell, 192 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). He alleges that Florida Statute 286.011, the government in the sunshine law, has been violated and accordingly he seeks to void certain actions of the town of Lantana’s civil service board and its town council. Specifically, he s…
-
Miami Dade Cnty. v. City of Miami (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2020)