City of Miami v. Loughrey, 64-80
Decision Date | 14 July 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 64-80,64-80 |
Citation | 166 So.2d 236 |
Parties | CITY OF MIAMI, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Florida, et al., Appellants, v. Joseph A. LOUGHREY, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John R. Barrett, City Atty., and Charles K. Allan, Asst. City Atty., for appellants.
Alan B. Brody, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellee, Joseph A. Loughrey, is a Civil Service employee of the City of Miami. He was charged as follows:
The Civil Service Board found him guilty and ordered that he be suspended for sixty days. The finding and the suspension were upheld by the City Manager of the appellant-City. The employee, Loughrey, then petitioned for certiorari in the circuit court, where the writ was granted and the finding and decision of the Civil Service Board and the judgment of the City Manager were quashed.
The order granting writ of certiorari states the basis of the court's action as follows:
'1. That there is a material and fatal variance between the charge of which Defendant was found guilty in the proceedings below and the Civil Service Rules and Regulations (of the City of Miami) under which said charges were brought, in that Petitioner was found guilty of acts which occurred prior to December 15, 1961, the effective date of said Rules, with the result that the Respondents are guilty of making ex post facto application of said Rules, contrary to law.
We are now called on to review upon appeal the decision of the circuit court. The appellant argues, first, that the circuit court does not have authority to try a matter do novo on petition for writ of certiorari. This is, of course, true. De Groot v. Sheffield, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 912. However, the point which includes the implication that the circuit judge tried this issue de novo is completely unsupported by the record in this case. We find that the record before the circuit judge supports his conclusion that the Civil Service Board did not have before it competent substantial evidence to support its finding.
Appellants' points 2 and 3, which challenge the authority of the circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Headley v. Baron, 67-932
...ex rel. Dresskell v. City of Miami, 153 Fla. 90, 13 So.2d 707; City of Miami v. Steckloff, Fla.1959, 111 So.2d 446; City of Miami v. Loughrey, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 236; State v. Williams, Fla.1967, 198 So.2d 21; Rubin v. Shapiro, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 854. The final judgment here under......
-
City of Hialeah v. Willey
...business above referred to. Affirmed. 1 See State ex rel. Dresskell v. City of Miami, 153 Fla. 90, 13 So.2d 707; City of Miami v. Loughrey, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 236; Rubin v. Shapiro, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d ...
-
Rinker Materials Corp. v. Citizens and Property Owners of Seventh Ave. Neighborhood
...taking additional evidence and substituting its own judgment for that of the Board contrary to established precedent. City of Miami v. Loughrey, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 236; Mortellaro v. Fellner, Fla.App.1973, 276 So.2d 74. A review of the record reflects that the applicable provisions of ......
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. Klein
...the circuit court may upon petition for certiorari filed by the employee order the reinstatement of the employee. Cf. City of Miami v. Loughrey, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 236; Rubin v. Sanford, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d Affirmed. ...