Richard Harper v. City of Key Colony Beach

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 24, 2024
Docket2023-1816
StatusPublished

This text of Richard Harper v. City of Key Colony Beach (Richard Harper v. City of Key Colony Beach) 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
Richard Harper v. City of Key Colony Beach, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 24, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1816 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-AP-1-M ________________

Richard Harper, Petitioner,

vs.

City of Key Colony Beach, Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Appellate Division, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge.

Andrew M. Tobin, P.A., and Andrew M. Tobin, for petitioner.

Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, P.A., and Jeffrey L. Hochman (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Denied. See Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530

(Fla. 1995) (“As a case travels up the judicial ladder, review should

consistently become narrower, not broader.”); Dep’t of Highway Safety &

Motor Vehicles v. Saxlehner, 96 So. 3d 1002, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)

(“Because this case involves second-tier certiorari, our scope and standard

of review is quite limited. . . . A district court of appeal may not utilize second-

tier review to correct simple legal error. To permit such a broad scope of

review would, in essence, permit a second appeal, nullifying the narrowing

scope of review described in Haines.”) (citation omitted). See also Custer

Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086, 1092 (Fla. 2010) (“[W]hen

a district court considers a petition for second-tier certiorari review, the

‘inquiry is limited to whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process

and whether the circuit court applied the correct law,’ or, as otherwise stated,

departed from the essential requirements of law.”) (quoting Haines, 658 So.

2d at 530); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. CEDA Health of Hialeah, LLC,

300 So. 3d 748, 750-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Our analysis is limited ‘by the

narrow scope of second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court acting in its

appellate capacity.’”) (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. CC

Chiropractic, LLC, 245 So. 3d 755, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)).

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

Related

Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs
658 So. 2d 523 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Custer Medical Center v. United Automobile Insurance Co.
62 So. 3d 1086 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)
State Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Saxlehner
96 So. 3d 1002 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richard Harper v. City of Key Colony Beach, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-harper-v-city-of-key-colony-beach-fladistctapp-2024.