Citation Numbers: 20 So. 2d 912, 155 Fla. 379
Judges: BROWN, J.:
Filed Date: 12/19/1944
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
In the petition for rehearing it is very earnestly insisted that the court in its original opinion departed from the opinion in the recently decided case of Hammond v. Curry. I do not think so.
The language used in the majority opinion in the case of Hammond v. Curry,
"We are not unaware of the rule found in some of the earlier cases, notably, State ex. rel. Lamar v. Johnson,
And in the same case, the majority of the court, speaking through Justice THOMAS, also said:
"We do not have the idea, suggested by the judge's observation, that because the order of the director is, according to the phraseology of the charter provision, final, there can be no judicial review of the sufficiency of evidence to support it. We may determine whether there has been 'a legal and reasonable exercise of adminstrative judgment predicated upon required procedure and appropriate evidence as shown by the record as made,' or whether there has been an 'abuse of delegated authority, or arbitrary or unreasonable action.' Nelson v. Lindsey, supra."
The case of Nelson v. Lindsey,
In this petition for rehearing it is also stated that in the majority opinion in Hammond v. Curry, supra, this Court said:
"We shall pause here to say that it was the city's burden to prove this charge, as well as the others, by a preponderance of the evidence."
That may well be true, but when such case was brought to this Court for review of the circuit court's judgment it was held, in line with our previous decisions, that this Court not attempt to reconcile conflicting testimony, or choose that which we think most worthy of belief. The rule laid down was that this Court would determine "whether there has been a legal and reasonable exercise of administrative judgment predicated upon required procedure and appropriate evidence as shown by the record as made."
In this connection we might call attention to the case of State v. Whitman,
In a recent case, involving the review on appeal to this Court of a judgment of the circuit court in a certiorari proceeding brought to quash the action of a Board of Public Instruction in discharging a school principal, Laney v. Board of Public Instructions,
"The general rule is that administrative findings, in order to be upheld by the courts, must be supported by substantial evidence. This means that there must be evidence which supports a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. It must do more than create a suspicion of the fact to be established, and must be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See State ex rel. v. Whitman,
We might observe here that the power and scope of review by certiorari of the quasi judicial action of administrative boards was discussed by this Court in Florida Motor Lines, Inc. v. Railroad Commissioners,
It is not necessary here for us to determine whether the scope of appellate review is broader in certiorari cases than in mandamus cases. But the writer is of the view that the *Page 387 opinion of Mr. Justice THOMAS in this case goes about as far as this Court can go, under the authorities, in dealing with the scope of appellate review of judgments in mandamus cases attacking the orders of administrative boards.
For the reasons above pointed out, I concur in holding that the original opinion and judgment should be adhered to, and the petition for rehearing denied.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BUFORD, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.