City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant
419 So.2d 624 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A final judgment of a circuit court, acting in its appellate capacity to review an administrative agency's action, is not subject to a second full appeal as a matter of right in a district court of appeal. Instead, review in the district court is limited to a discretionary writ of certiorari.
Facts:
- Michael Vaillant served as the superintendent of the Deerfield Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant.
- The city manager of Deerfield Beach terminated Vaillant's employment.
- Vaillant appealed his termination to the Civil Service Board of the City of Deerfield Beach.
- After conducting a hearing, the Civil Service Board voted to uphold the termination of Vaillant's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- After the Civil Service Board upheld his termination, Michael Vaillant petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certiorari to review the Board's decision.
- The circuit court granted Vaillant's petition, reversed the Board's decision, and ordered his reinstatement.
- The City of Deerfield Beach, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, with Vaillant as appellee.
- The Fourth District treated the City's appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari and denied it, thereby affirming the circuit court's decision.
- The City of Deerfield Beach then petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review, alleging the Fourth District's decision expressly conflicted with a decision from another district.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party have a right to a full appeal in a district court of appeal from a circuit court's final judgment that was entered on review of an administrative agency's action?
Opinions:
Majority - Alderman, Chief Justice
No. A party who has received a full review of administrative action in the circuit court is not entitled to a second full review in the district court of appeal. The court reasoned that when a circuit court reviews an administrative decision, it is effectively acting in an appellate capacity, providing the party their first appeal as a matter of right. This initial review determines whether the agency provided due process, followed the law, and based its findings on competent substantial evidence. Allowing another full appeal would be repetitive and contrary to common sense. Therefore, subsequent review in the district court is not a matter of right but is limited to certiorari, where the district court's only task is to determine whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law.
Dissenting - Adkins, Justice
The justice dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the two-tiered standard of review for administrative actions in Florida, solidifying the distinction between a first appeal to the circuit court and a second, more limited review in the district court. It establishes that the district court's role in these cases is not to reweigh the evidence from the original agency hearing, but to act as a check on the circuit court, ensuring it performed its own review function correctly. This precedent conserves judicial resources by preventing multiple, full-scale appeals of the same administrative decision and defines the narrow scope of second-tier certiorari review.
