Ackman v. Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ackman v. Dade County

308 So. 2d 622, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14570

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 1975

DocketNos. 74-558, 74-990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 308 So. 2d 622 (Ackman v. Dade County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ackman v. Dade County, 308 So. 2d 622, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14570 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals are by the same appellant from final judgments in two separate actions against Dade County. In the first action, Martin Ackman brought a petition in mandamus in order to compel the County to advertise and grant to the highest bidder a commercial concession at the Miami International Airport pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 125.35. The petition for mandamus was dismissed and the first appeal followed. Subsequently, appellant brought an action for declaratory judgment by which he sought a judicial declaration that a certain gift shop concession is an exclusive franchise and that it could be granted by the County only under a competitive bidding procedure. The trial court entered a summary declaratory judgment holding as a matter of law that competitive bidding was not required. The second appeal is from that judgment.

Appeal No. 74-558, which is from the dismissal of the petition for mandamus, is affirmed. The petition fails to show a clear legal right to the performance of an administrative act by the County. See State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 312. The relief sought was more appropriately presented to the trial court by the complaint for declaratory judgment which was subsequently filed. We, therefore, hold that appellant has failed to present reversible error upon the dismissal of his petition for mandamus.

Appeal No. 74-990 is from the summary final judgment in the action for declaratory judgment. As stated above, the amended complaint requested a declaration as to the requirement for the use of a bidding process for the granting of a specific concession. The question presented was one exclusively of law and did not entail disputed evidentiary facts. We hold that the trial court correctly determined that the facts before it were susceptible only to one legal conclusion, namely, that there was no requirement of law that this particular concession be granted under the bidding process required by Fla.Stat. § 125.35.

Thereupon, the final judgment in each of the appeals is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals are by the same appellant from final judgments in two separate actions against Dade County. In the first action, Martin Ackman brought a petition in mandamus in order to compel the County to advertise and grant to the highest bidder a commercial concession at the Miami International Airport pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 125.35. The petition for mandamus was dismissed and the first appeal followed. Subsequently, appellant brought an action for declaratory judgment by which he sought a judicial declaration that a certain gift shop concession is an exclusive franchise and that it could be granted by the County only under a competitive bidding procedure. The trial court entered a summary declaratory judgment holding as a matter of law that competitive bidding was not required. The second appeal is from that judgment.

Appeal No. 74-558, which is from the dismissal of the petition for mandamus, is affirmed. The petition fails to show a clear legal right to the performance of an administrative act by the County. See State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 312. The relief sought was more appropriately presented to the trial court by the complaint for declaratory judgment which was subsequently filed. We, therefore, hold that appellant has failed to present reversible error upon the dismissal of his petition for mandamus.

Appeal No. 74-990 is from the summary final judgment in the action for declaratory judgment. As stated above, the amended complaint requested a declaration as to the requirement for the use of a bidding process for the granting of a specific concession. The question presented was one exclusively of law and did not entail disputed evidentiary facts. We hold that the trial court correctly determined that the facts before it were susceptible only to one legal conclusion, namely, that there was no requirement of law that this particular concession be granted under the bidding process required by Fla.Stat. § 125.35.

Thereupon, the final judgment in each of the appeals is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 So. 2d 622, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ackman-v-dade-county-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack