Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
City of Kissimmee v. Grice
Citations: 669 So. 2d 307; 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2186; 1996 WL 98688Docket: 95-2646
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 7, 1996; Florida; State Appellate Court
The City of Kissimmee sought certiorari review from the Florida District Court of Appeal regarding the wrongful termination of police officer David Grice. The circuit court had ordered the City to reinstate Grice with back pay after the City failed to respond to Grice's petition for a writ of certiorari. The City contended that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over Grice's termination but did not provide a response to the petition. The appellate court noted that while the City’s lack of response limited the court's review to the record and allegations in the petition, this absence does not automatically grant the requested relief. The court referenced relevant case law, establishing that the removal of a public employee is subject to judicial review if it requires a hearing and the decision is not purely executive. In this case, the court emphasized that certiorari review does not allow the appellate court to reassess the evidence but rather to ensure there is competent, substantial evidence supporting the lower tribunal's decision. The ruling pointed out a procedural error in the circuit court's decision, characterizing it as a 'Per Curiam Reversal,' which requires the appellate court to provide a written opinion for all reversals, underscoring the importance of articulating the basis for the decision in appellate reviews. The court in Kates v. Millheiser emphasized the necessity for appellate courts to provide reasons for reversals to uphold judicial integrity. The City sought to dismiss a petition for Writ of Certiorari, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming the action in question was purely executive and thus not subject to review. According to De Groot, the trial court can ascertain whether the act was an executive decision; if it was, the writ should be dismissed, otherwise, the court should address the merits. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss without explanation, leading to ambiguity regarding the justification for Grice's termination. The appellate court noted that even if the denial implied the termination was not an executive decision, the reasons for Grice's termination remained unclear. On remand, the trial court must acknowledge its limited certiorari authority, which does not include mandates for specific actions. Nonetheless, quashing the termination order would effectively achieve the same outcome as the court's directive. The order was quashed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Notably, the circuit court failed to establish factual determinations, only offering legal conclusions regarding the city's actions in terminating Grice.