City of Miami v. Carollo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Miami v. Carollo

748 So. 2d 397, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1297, 2000 WL 156145

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 2000

DocketNo. 3D00-266

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 748 So. 2d 397 (City of Miami v. Carollo) 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

City of Miami v. Carollo, 748 So. 2d 397, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1297, 2000 WL 156145 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the underlying case, the trial court enjoined the election scheduled for March 14, 2000, because City of Miami Charter Amendment No. 1 results in an illegal recall in violation of the mayor’s due process rights. On appeal, as below, the City argues, citing City of Jacksonville v. Smoot, 83 Fla. 575, 92 So. 617 (1922), and Hall v. Strickland, 170 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1964), that there has been no illegal recall and that the changes to the mayor’s duties resulting from the charter amendment effectively abolish the office.

After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the trial court’s determination that, “[i]n the present case, the amendment effected only a change from an ‘executive’ to an ‘administrative’ mayor by eliminating the position of city manager and redistributing the [city] manager’s powers, some to the mayor and some to the commission.” Further, we agree with the trial court’s analysis that the cases cited by the City are distinguishable because the changes to the mayor’s duties as prescribed by the charter amendment neither expressly abolish the office itself, nor alter the method of selection of the office, nor change the qualifications of the office. Adding responsibilities to the office does not constitute “abolishment” of the office of mayor.

We affirm the injunction of the election scheduled for March 14, 2000, and because of the time constraints involved, we preclude any motions for rehearing and deem this opinion final.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the underlying case, the trial court enjoined the election scheduled for March 14, 2000, because City of Miami Charter Amendment No. 1 results in an illegal recall in violation of the mayor’s due process rights. On appeal, as below, the City argues, citing City of Jacksonville v. Smoot, 83 Fla. 575, 92 So. 617 (1922), and Hall v. Strickland, 170 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1964), that there has been no illegal recall and that the changes to the mayor’s duties resulting from the charter amendment effectively abolish the office.

After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the trial court’s determination that, “[i]n the present case, the amendment effected only a change from an ‘executive’ to an ‘administrative’ mayor by eliminating the position of city manager and redistributing the [city] manager’s powers, some to the mayor and some to the commission.” Further, we agree with the trial court’s analysis that the cases cited by the City are distinguishable because the changes to the mayor’s duties as prescribed by the charter amendment neither expressly abolish the office itself, nor alter the method of selection of the office, nor change the qualifications of the office. Adding responsibilities to the office does not constitute “abolishment” of the office of mayor.

We affirm the injunction of the election scheduled for March 14, 2000, and because of the time constraints involved, we preclude any motions for rehearing and deem this opinion final.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

748 So. 2d 397, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1297, 2000 WL 156145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-v-carollo-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack