City of Miami v. Elmore, 60-383
| Decision Date | 04 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 60-383,60-383 |
| Citation | 131 So.2d 517 |
| Parties | CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, et al., Appellants, v. Jack S. ELMORE, Lochard F. Gracy and Malcolm Gracy, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Milton M. Ferrell, Miami, Sp. Counsel for City of Miami, for appellant.
Joseph J. Gersten and Alex S. Gordon, Miami, for appellees.
Before HORTON, C. J., CARROLL, CHAS., J., and SMITH, D. R., Associate Judge.
The appellees are detectives in the division of police of the City of Miami, and were, on May 13, 1958, certified by the civil service board as having passed promotional examinations for the rank of detective sergeant; thereafter, they were placed on the eligible roster as qualified for promotion to such position. The eligible list upon which the appellees were placed would have expired on May 13, 1959, but by order of the civil service board was extended an additional year to May 13, 1960. From the time they attained their positions on the eligibility roster until the time of the filing of this action, several vacancies in the rank of detective sergeant occurred in the division of police. However, on December 9, 1959, the city manager issued an order freezing all promotions as an economy measure. As a result of the city manager's action, the appellees did not receive promotions, nor has the city manager filled these positions which the appellees claimed they would have been entitled to fill under the prevailing civil service rules and regulations.
As a result of the aforementioned facts, the appellees instituted a proceeding for declaratory relief in which they contended they had a right to fill by promotion the alleged vacancies in the position of detective sergeant, and that the actions of the city manager in failing to promote them to such positions and his freeze order of December 9, 1959, deprived them of such rights and the emoluments of the offices.
The appellants answered and contended in substance that the city manager, under the charter, was granted the sole discretion in determining the number of police officers and, by ordinance was granted the authority to abolish positions in the interests of efficient and economic administration, and further, that no rights vested in the appellees to the promotion notwithstanding the admitted fact that they occupied positions on the eligibility roster that would have permitted their promotion in the event vacancies were filled. Upon a trial of the issues, the chancellor granted the relief prayed by the appellees and promoted each of the appellees to the position of detective sergeant, retroactive to the day on which the court determined that the promotions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowlin v. Dade County, 73--1431
...man eligibility list. The appellant, as an employee, has no constitutional right to promotion by his superiors. See City of Miami v. Elmore, Fla.App.1961,131 So.2d 517, and City of Miami v. Rezeau, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 432. We agree with the trial judge that a Director of Public Safety c......
-
City of Miami v. Meynarez
...constituted executive action by the appointing authority as in Myers v. Garmire, 353 So.2d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) and City of Miami v. Elmore, 131 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 136 So.2d 342 (Fla.1961). Meynarez's answer to this contention is that her termination constituted "admin......
-
Myers v. Garmire, 76-1518
...a legal duty upon the respondents to promote them. See City of Miami v. Rezeau, 129 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); City of Miami v. Elmore, 131 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); City of Miami v. Perkins, 139 So.2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). As this court stated in Elmore, supra, at "We are unable t......
- Elmore v. City of Miami.