City of Miami v. Zinkel

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Miami v. Zinkel

181 So. 2d 676, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5816

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 1966

DocketNo. 65-456

StatusPublished

This text of 181 So. 2d 676 (City of Miami v. Zinkel) 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. Zinkel, 181 So. 2d 676, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5816 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves the correctness of a circuit court order quashing an order of the City Manager of the appellant City, which upheld the recommendations of the Civil Service Board, which suspended the appellee for thirty days and reduced him in rank. The circuit judge quashed the disciplinary action upon the basis that the “charge” contained in the original notice of alleged violation by the appellee failed to state facts as of the date charged, to wit: May 8, 1964, which would constitute a punishable offense under the charter and ordinances of the municipality. We affirm. See: State ex rel. Hawkins v. McCall, 1947, 158 Fla. 655, 29 So.2d 739.

[677]*677The act alleged to have been a violation on May 8, 1964 was the giving of true testimony in a judicial proceeding. This could not, at this date, constitute “conduct unbecoming an employee of the City of Miami” in violation of the charter and ordinances of the muncipality. However, this affirmance is without prejudice as to any other rights the City might have as to alleged violations on any other date.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal involves the correctness of a circuit court order quashing an order of the City Manager of the appellant City, which upheld the recommendations of the Civil Service Board, which suspended the appellee for thirty days and reduced him in rank. The circuit judge quashed the disciplinary action upon the basis that the “charge” contained in the original notice of alleged violation by the appellee failed to state facts as of the date charged, to wit: May 8, 1964, which would constitute a punishable offense under the charter and ordinances of the municipality. We affirm. See: State ex rel. Hawkins v. McCall, 1947, 158 Fla. 655, 29 So.2d 739.

[677]*677The act alleged to have been a violation on May 8, 1964 was the giving of true testimony in a judicial proceeding. This could not, at this date, constitute “conduct unbecoming an employee of the City of Miami” in violation of the charter and ordinances of the muncipality. However, this affirmance is without prejudice as to any other rights the City might have as to alleged violations on any other date.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 So. 2d 676, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-v-zinkel-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack