State Ex Rel. Pinellas Kennel Club, Inc. v. State Racing Commission
| Citation | 156 So. 317,116 Fla. 143 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. PINELLAS KENNEL CLUB, Inc. v. STATE RACING COMMISSION et al. |
| Decision Date | 07 August 1934 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
En Banc.
Original proceeding in mandamus by the State, on the relation of the Pinellas Kennel Club, Inc., against the State Racing Commission and others, to compel respondents to issue a racing permit.
Peremptory writ awarded.
COUNSEL Carey & Askew, of St. Petersburg, for relator.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Pleus, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Relator filed an application for a racing permit under chapter 14832, Acts 1931. The permit was denied, and mandamus has been applied for on the theory that the granting of permits, when applications are made in proper form, is a nondiscretionary mandatory duty on the part of the state racing commission under chapter 14832, supra.
In the present case the court is of the opinion that no sufficient legal cause for denial of the permit has been made to appear, conceding arguendo that the claimed discretion on the part of the state racing commission to deny permits, under certain circumstances, exists.
When discretion is given by law, but is arbitrarily or clearly erroneously exercised or abused by the official action of a board, such as the state racing commission, such official action is subject to judicial review on mandamus, and redress may be had on such writ, where no other adequate legal remedy exists. State v. Finley, 30 Fla. 302, 11 So. 500; State v. Kirke, 12 Fla. 278, 95 Am. Dec. 314; State ex rel. Tullidge v. Hollingsworth, 103 Fla. 801, 138 So. 372.
Peremptory writ awarded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Gould
...review of administrative 344 So.3d 503 action that involved fact-finding. See State ex rel. Pinellas Kennel Club v. State Racing Comm'n, 116 Fla. 143, 156 So. 317, 317 (1934) ("When discretion is given by law, but is arbitrarily or clearly erroneously exercised or abused by the official act......
-
State Ex Rel. Allen v. Rose
... ... constituting the members of the state racing commission of ... the state of Florida, and ... Kennel Club as a condition or qualification for the ... 516. In ... the case of State ex rel. Pinellas County v. Sholtz et ... al., 115 Fla. 561, 155 ... 919, 46 L.R.A ... (N.S.) 1119; Maxcy, Inc., v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552, 139 ... So. 121; Rost ... ...
-
Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Gould
... ... State , 783 ... So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). [ ... State ex rel. Fisher , 3 Fla. 202, 209 (1850) (quoting ... State ex ... rel. Epicure, Inc. , 4 So.2d 116, 117 (Fla. 1941) ... "A ... See State ex rel. Pinellas Kennel ... Club v. State Racing Comm'n , ... commission, such official action is subject to judicial ... ...
-
De Groot v. Sheffield
...103 Fla. 801, 138 So. 372; State ex rel. Hatton v. Joughin, 103 Fla. 877, 138 So. 392; State ex rel. Pinellas Kennel Club v. State Racing Commission, 116 Fla. 143, 156 So. 317. In the same cases and similar ones it was held that where an officer or employee is removed pursuant to purely exe......