Miami-Dade County v. Palmetto Bay

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miami-Dade County v. Palmetto Bay

744 So. 2d 1076, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12736, 1999 WL 765948

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 29, 1999

DocketNo. 99-1714

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 744 So. 2d 1076 (Miami-Dade County v. Palmetto Bay) 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

Miami-Dade County v. Palmetto Bay, 744 So. 2d 1076, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12736, 1999 WL 765948 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the interpretation of Section 5.05 of the Dade County Home Rule Charter which authorizes the “Board of County Commissioners and only the Board ... [to] creat[e] ... new municipalities in the unincorporated areas of the county after hearing the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Board, after a public hearing, and after an affirmative vote of a majority of the electors voting and residing within the proposed boundaries _” (emphasis supplied).

Appellees ask the Court to read into Section 5.05 a requirement that the Board must hold an election when considering every petition for incorporation. On the one hand, it is clear that the provision sets forth certain prerequisites to authorizing incorporation. However, we do not interpret this language as imposing an obligation on the Board to hold an election. Instead, we find that Section 5.05 authorizes the Board to make a purely discretionary political decision, to-wit: whether to move forward towards authorizing incorporation, and does not create an obligation to hold an election. See § 165.041, Fla. Stat. (1997); Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Fla., ch.20, art. II (1998).

As indicated above, one of the prerequisites that must be satisfied before the Board could authorize incorporation would be the holding of an election. However, the Board need only hold an election if, and only if, the Board makes the purely discretionary decision to move forward towards authorizing incorporation. Accordingly, as with all political decisions that are purely discretionary, because Appellees cannot demonstrate “a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty” namely, the holding of an election, mandamus was inappropriately granted in the instant matter. Borja v. NationsBank of Florida, N.A., 698 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Fraternal Order Of Police v. Odio, 491 So.2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the interpretation of Section 5.05 of the Dade County Home Rule Charter which authorizes the “Board of County Commissioners and only the Board ... [to] creat[e] ... new municipalities in the unincorporated areas of the county after hearing the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Board, after a public hearing, and after an affirmative vote of a majority of the electors voting and residing within the proposed boundaries _” (emphasis supplied).

Appellees ask the Court to read into Section 5.05 a requirement that the Board must hold an election when considering every petition for incorporation. On the one hand, it is clear that the provision sets forth certain prerequisites to authorizing incorporation. However, we do not interpret this language as imposing an obligation on the Board to hold an election. Instead, we find that Section 5.05 authorizes the Board to make a purely discretionary political decision, to-wit: whether to move forward towards authorizing incorporation, and does not create an obligation to hold an election. See § 165.041, Fla. Stat. (1997); Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Fla., ch.20, art. II (1998).

As indicated above, one of the prerequisites that must be satisfied before the Board could authorize incorporation would be the holding of an election. However, the Board need only hold an election if, and only if, the Board makes the purely discretionary decision to move forward towards authorizing incorporation. Accordingly, as with all political decisions that are purely discretionary, because Appellees cannot demonstrate “a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty” namely, the holding of an election, mandamus was inappropriately granted in the instant matter. Borja v. NationsBank of Florida, N.A., 698 So.2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Fraternal Order Of Police v. Odio, 491 So.2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

744 So. 2d 1076, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12736, 1999 WL 765948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miami-dade-county-v-palmetto-bay-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack