METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY PLUMBING CONTRACTORS' EXAMINING BOARD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. W. H. BISHOP, 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.
The Metropolitan Dade County Plumbing Contractors' Examining Board appealed a circuit court's issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the Board to issue an unrestricted occupational license to W. H. Bishop. The Board's sole argument on appeal was that Bishop's petition was barred by the doctrine of laches because he waited five years after a prior court decision to file.
The court affirmed the circuit court's issuance of the peremptory writ, holding that the circuit judge did not commit error in declining to deny relief on the basis of laches. Although laches is ordinarily an equity doctrine, it may be considered as a defense in mandamus proceedings, but the circuit court properly determined that the undisputed facts did not warrant barring Bishop's lawful claim.
“Mandamus is an extraordinary action at law.”
Establishes that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, setting the standard for review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW. H. Bishop was a licensed plumber in the unincorporated area of Dade County for five years prior to the adoption of metropolitan government. Bishop …
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 Occupational License cases and more on FLexlaw
By this action, the appellant seeks review of a peremptory writ of mandamus issued by the circuit court of Dade County. From the record, it appears that the relator, W. H. Bishop, was a licensed plumber in the unincorporated area of Dade County, Florida, for some five years prior to the adoption of the metropolitan form of government in said County. It also appears that the relator made application for an unrestricted occupational license or certificate of competency for all of Dade County [both incorporated and unincorporated areas], within the time limit prescribed in Ordinance No. 17.06(2)1, Code of Metropolitan Dade County, and that the appellant rejected same on an unrestricted basis and issued to the relator a license for only the unincorporated area. This was in accordance with the general policy of the County, as approved by the County Attorney, which policy was abrogated by a decision of this court in State ex rel. Greenberg v. Dade County, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 625. The sole point urged on appeal to upset the circuit court’s ruling is the appellant’s contention that the relator was not entitled to the relief sought because of the doctrine of laches, he having waited some five years after the decision in State ex rel., Greenberg v. Dade County, supra, before filing his petition for mandamus.
Mandamus is an extraordinary action at law. State ex rel. Perkins v. Lee, 142 Fla. 154, 194 So. 315; 21 Fla.Jur., Mandamus, § 4. Ordinarily, laches is only available in defense of an equity proceeding. Reed v. Fain, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 322; 15 F.L.P., Laches, § 3. However, it has been recognized as a defense to be considered in mandamus matters. State ex rel. Palmer-Florida Corporation v. Green, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 493; City of Daytona Beach v. Layne, Fla.1957, 91 So.2d 814.
The facts were undisputed. It was within the province of the circuit judge to determine whether the relator’s lawful claim was barred by laches. He declined to deny relief on this ground, and we fail to find that he .committed error in this regard. Bethea v. Langford, Fla.1949, 45 So.2d 496; City of Miami v. Carter, Fla.1958, 105 So.2d 5; Peacock v. Firman, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 560.
Therefore, the peremptory writ here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sellers v. Culbertson, 224 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…S.Ct. 1913, 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968). The ruling concerning laches constitutes a finding of fact based upon the evidence. See City of Miami v. Carter, Fla.1958, 105 So. 2d 5; Metropolitan Dade County PI. C.E.B. v. State ex rel. Bishop, Fla.App. 1968, 216 So. 2d 76. The record before us is insufficient to show error, and the judgment is affirmed upon authority of Renshaw v. State ex rel. Hickland, 149 Fla. 342, 5 So. 2d 700 (1942). Affirmed.…
-
Wright v. Frankel, 965 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…y against whom relief is sought.” Black’s Law Dictionary 891 (8th ed. 2004). Generally, whether a lawful claim is barred by laches is a matter of trial court discretion. Metro. Dade County Plumbing Contractors’ Examining Bd. v. State ex rel. Bishop, 216 So. 2d 76, 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Wright v. Frankel, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D97, D98 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 27, 2006). Like the majority opinion on the motion for rehearing en banc, I agree that: [*374] If ... a suggestion of futility is not a proper basis for preve…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Bethea v. Langford, 45 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1949)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Palmer-Florida Corp. v. Honorable Ray E. Green, 88 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1956)
- The City OF Miami v. Carter, 105 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1958)
- Peacock v. Firman, 177 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- State ex rel. L. A. Perkins v. Lee, 142 Fla. 154 (Fla. 1940)
- State ex rel. Hoke Williams v. Hon. J. E. Albritton, 141 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1939)
- Lloyd v. Adair, 120 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Lloyd v. Adair, 120 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- The City OF Daytona Beach v. Alva G. Layne, 91 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1957)
- George v. Reed and Clara M. Reed, 122 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)