Kellar v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kellar v. Moore

820 So. 2d 1015, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 9382, 2002 WL 1401707

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 1, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-4008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 820 So. 2d 1015 (Kellar v. Moore) 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

Kellar v. Moore, 820 So. 2d 1015, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 9382, 2002 WL 1401707 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court reached the right result for the wrong reason. “Mandamus is a narrow, extraordinary writ used to coerce an official to perform a clear legal duty.” Sica v. Singletary, 714 So.2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “Although manda--mus is a legal remedy, the granting of the writ is governed by equitable principles.” Shevin ex rel. State v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 333 So.2d 9, 12 (Fla.1976). “Just as equitable remedies are unavailable when there is an adequate remedy at law, Egan v. City of Miami, 130 Fla. 465, 178 So. 132 (1938); City of Jacksonville v. Giller, 102 Fla. 92, 135 So. 549 (1931), so relief by mandamus is unavailable unless ‘no other adequate remedy exists.’ State ex rel. Blatt v. Panelfab Int'l Corp., 314 So.2d 196, 198 (Fla.App.3d DCA 1975); Moneyhun v. Purdy, 258 So.2d 505 (Fla.App.3d DCA 1972).” Shevin, 333 So.2d at 12. Other adequate legal remedies do exist here. See, e.g., Abbott v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 783 So.2d 1213, 1214-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

BARFIELD, WEBSTER, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court reached the right result for the wrong reason. “Mandamus is a narrow, extraordinary writ used to coerce an official to perform a clear legal duty.” Sica v. Singletary, 714 So.2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). “Although manda--mus is a legal remedy, the granting of the writ is governed by equitable principles.” Shevin ex rel. State v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 333 So.2d 9, 12 (Fla.1976). “Just as equitable remedies are unavailable when there is an adequate remedy at law, Egan v. City of Miami, 130 Fla. 465, 178 So. 132 (1938); City of Jacksonville v. Giller, 102 Fla. 92, 135 So. 549 (1931), so relief by mandamus is unavailable unless ‘no other adequate remedy exists.’ State ex rel. Blatt v. Panelfab Int'l Corp., 314 So.2d 196, 198 (Fla.App.3d DCA 1975); Moneyhun v. Purdy, 258 So.2d 505 (Fla.App.3d DCA 1972).” Shevin, 333 So.2d at 12. Other adequate legal remedies do exist here. See, e.g., Abbott v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 783 So.2d 1213, 1214-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

BARFIELD, WEBSTER, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

820 So. 2d 1015, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 9382, 2002 WL 1401707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kellar-v-moore-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack