Manatee County v. City of Bradenton, 2D01-5221.
| Decision Date | 25 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D01-5221.,2D01-5221. |
| Citation | 828 So.2d 1083 |
| Parties | MANATEE COUNTY, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. CITY OF BRADENTON, Florida, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, City Council of the City of Bradenton, Florida, Tracy Hallenbeck, Willis R. Hermann Revocable Trust u/a/d March 20, 1996, Marita J. Hermann Revocable Trust u/a/d March 20, 1996, Pamela K. Howard, Kelley Family Living Trust, Nordic of Florida Development, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Maria C. Pardo, Juan Carlos Curci, Andrew Pyne, Kim A. Pyne, George T. Stolt, Cindy Dring, Rick M. Stowe, and Norman Worthington, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Minix, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Bradenton, for Petitioner.
Kevin T. Wells, Sarasota, for Amicus Curiae Richard B. Bishop.
William R. Lisch and John P. Harllee III, Bradenton, for Respondent.
Manatee County petitions for a writ of common law certiorari to quash an order of the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity. The order denied the county's amended petition for writ of certiorari which challenged an ordinance enacted by the City of Bradenton. The disputed ordinance annexed real property located in an unincorporated portion of Manatee County into the city.
In its review of the ordinance, the circuit court applied the proper standard for certiorari review of an administrative action as set out in Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530 (Fla.1995). The court considered: 1) whether the agency action afforded the parties procedural due process; 2) whether the essential requirements of law were observed; and 3) whether the agency action is supported by competent, substantial evidence.
This court may review only "whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and whether the circuit court applied the correct law." Id. Manatee County acknowledged that this was the appropriate standard of review, but argued only that the circuit court misinterpreted what the parties agree are the applicable statutes.1 Because Manatee County did not demonstrate that the circuit court applied the wrong law, but rather argued that it misapplied the correct law, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. See Martin County v. City of Stuart, 736 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
1. Manatee Couunty did not claim that it was deprived of procedural due process.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alger v. United States
...a violation of clearly established law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.") (citation omitted); Manatee Cty. v. City of Bradenton, 828 So. 2d 1083, 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (As petitioner failed to demonstrate "that the circuit court applied the wrong law, but rather argued that it misap......
-
State v. Edenfield
...does not constitute a violation of clearly established law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”); Manatee County v. City of Bradenton, 828 So.2d 1083, 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The Supreme Court has explained the policy giving rise to the narrow standard of review applicable to second-tie......
- In re Commitment of Sutton
-
Second-tier certiorari standard of review under Florida Law: a practitioner's guide.
...from the essential requirements of the law[.]'" (quoting G.B.V. Int'l, 787 So. 2d at 845)). (30) Manatee County v. City of Bradenton, 828 So. 2d 1083, 1084 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2002) ("Because Manatee County did not demonstrate that the circuit court applied the wrong law, but rather argued that......