Hernandez v. Miami-Dade Cnty.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hernandez v. Miami-Dade Cnty.

245 So. 3d 1007

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 30, 2018

DocketNo. 3D17–1364

StatusPublished

This text of 245 So. 3d 1007 (Hernandez v. Miami-Dade Cnty.) 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

Hernandez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 245 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Moises Hernandez, brought this case as an appeal from the circuit court appellate division's per curiam affirmance of the Miami-Dade County Mayor's decision dismissing Petitioner from his employment with the County based on the findings and recommendations of a hearing officer following a civil service hearing conducted pursuant to Section 2-47 of the Miami-Dade County Code. We treat the appeal as a petition for second-tier certiorari review. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B).

As such, we are limited to a determination of whether Petitioner has demonstrated a violation of a clearly established legal principle that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See Miami-Dade Cty. v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So.2d 195, 199 (Fla. 2003). In considering the evidence in the record, we find he has not and, therefore, deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Moises Hernandez, brought this case as an appeal from the circuit court appellate division's per curiam affirmance of the Miami-Dade County Mayor's decision dismissing Petitioner from his employment with the County based on the findings and recommendations of a hearing officer following a civil service hearing conducted pursuant to Section 2-47 of the Miami-Dade County Code. We treat the appeal as a petition for second-tier certiorari review. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B).

As such, we are limited to a determination of whether Petitioner has demonstrated a violation of a clearly established legal principle that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See Miami-Dade Cty. v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So.2d 195, 199 (Fla. 2003). In considering the evidence in the record, we find he has not and, therefore, deny the petition.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 So. 3d 1007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-miami-dade-cnty-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack