Thomas v. Office of Sheriff, BQ-367

Decision Date05 May 1987
Docket NumberNo. BQ-367,BQ-367
Citation12 Fla. L. Weekly 1152,507 So.2d 145
Parties12 Fla. L. Weekly 1152 Cathy M. THOMAS, Appellant, v. OFFICE OF the SHERIFF, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Henry M. Coxe, III, of Coxe and Schemer, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Gerald A. Schneider, Gen. Counsel, Robert G. Alexander, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Jacksonville, for appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

Thomas seeks certiorari review of an opinion of the circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, which reversed a decision of the Civil Service Board ordering her to be reinstated to her position as a sergeant with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and extending her probationary period for three months.

The sheriff demoted Thomas to patrolman at the end of her six-month probationary period.Thomas filed a complaint with the Civil Service Board alleging that her demotion was in violation of the employee performance evaluation system which the sheriff was required to follow.

At the end of the second hearing on Thomas' complaint, one of the Board members moved that Thomas be reinstated on the grounds that her evaluation had not been done properly.The Board voted unanimously to reinstate Thomas and extend her probationary period three months.The Board's order does not contain any findings of fact or conclusions of law.

On appeal to the circuit court, the sheriff contended that the employee performance evaluation system did not rise to the level of a rule which he was required to follow.The circuit court found that the record was devoid of any proof that a rule of the Board was violated and reversed the action of the Board with instructions to reinstate the sheriff's order demoting Thomas.The court went on to find that even if the employee performance evaluation system constituted a proposed rule, it had not been approved as provided by law.

The absence of findings of fact by the Board and its failure to determine the rules or regulations pertinent to the matter being reviewed by it renders its order defective and subject to reversal on due process grounds.Irvine v. Duval County Planning Commission, 466 So.2d 357, 362(Fla. 1st DCA1985)(dissenting opinion by Judge Zehmer), approved, 495 So.2d 167(Fla.1986),adopted on remand, 504 So.2d 1265(Fla. 1st DCA1986).Here, in the face of a record and an order obviously unclear as to the basis for the Board's decision, the trial court undertook its own evaluation of the evidence and determination of the rules applicable...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Harrison v. Neumann, 4D00-0356.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 14, 2000
    ...patently, there are no material findings. See Smith v. Metropolitan Dade County, 532 So.2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Thomas v. Office of Sheriff, 507 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); City of Miami v. Lopez, 487 So.2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA In Gramm, this court held that the failure of a civil service......
  • Smith v. Metropolitan Dade County
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 1988
    ...that the case be remanded for that purpose. City of Miami v. Lopez, 487 So.2d 1111 (Fla.3d DCA 1986); see Thomas v. Office of Sheriff, 507 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Accordingly, certiorari is granted and the circuit court's opinion affirming the former county manager's determination is......
  • Bryant v. Beary, 95-2730
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 5, 1996
    ...Office, Chapter 89-507 bring that office under the APA. Nor have any judicial opinions so held. In fact, Thomas v. Office of the Sheriff, 507 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) indicates appellate jurisdiction lies, if anywhere, in the circuit court. Thus, we grant the Sheriff's motion to dismis......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT