CITY OF HALLANDALE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. E. M. SEGALL, AS TRUSTEE, 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 court reversed a mandamus judgment compelling issuance of a building permit, holding that the applicant lacked a clear legal right to the permit necessary to invoke mandamus relief.
A party seeking mandamus to compel issuance of a building permit must possess a clear legal right to that permit.
[1] Mandamus to compel issuance of a building permit requires the applicant to demonstrate a clear legal right to the permit.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSegall applied for an amended building permit to construct a ten-story condominium, which the City of Hallandale denied. Segall then filed a mandamus …
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 Building Permits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee-Segall’s application for an amended building permit for construction of a ten-story condominium was denied by appellants. Appellee instituted a mandamus proceeding in the circuit court to compel appellants to issue appellee the requested permit. The circuit court issued an alternative writ of mandamus. Responsive pleadings thereto were filed by appellants. Appellee then moved the circuit court to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus. The cause came on for hearing. Thereafter the circuit court entered final judgment granting appellee a peremptory writ of mandamus directing appellants to issue appellee the requested amended building permit. It is from this final judgment that appellants take their appeal.
Upon review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel for the respective parties, we determine that the appellee did not possess a clear legal right to the issuance of the subject amended building permit, such right being necessary to warrant the circuit court’s enforcement of that right by mandamus. The circuit court, therefore, erred in entering final judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandamus.
Accordingly, the final judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded, with directions to enter an order dismissing the petition for a writ of mandamus.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and OWEN, TT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sandpiper BAY, Inc. v. LaCHANCE, 384 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ssessed a clear legal right to the issuance of the subject building permit. Consequently, the order of the trial court denying the writ was correct. State, ex rel. McCoy v. Bell, 91 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1956); City of Hallandale v. State, ex rel. Segall, 322 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Ross v. McCrimmon, 233 So. 2d 411 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). Since the foregoing determination is dis-positive of this appeal, the points raised by appellant are rendered moot. AFFIRMED. DOWNEY, J., and DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Jr., Associ…