DAVIDE v. OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION (2020)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Anthony DAVIDE, Petitioner, v. State of Florida, OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION, Respondent.

No. 3D19-2249

Decided: February 19, 2020

Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and GORDO, JJ.

Pierre Simon, and Faudlin Pierre (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Timothy L. Newhall (Tallahassee), Senior Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Denied. See RHS Corp. v. City of Boynton Beach, 736 So. 2d 1211, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“In order for a court to issue a writ of mandamus, a plaintiff must establish ‘that he has a clear legal right to the performance of a clear legal duty by a public officer and that he has no other legal remedies available to him.’ ” (quoting Hatten v. State, 561 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1990)));¹ Smith v. State, 696 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“A party petitioning for writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to performance of the act requested, an indisputable legal duty, and no adequate remedy at law.” (citing Turner v. Singletary, 623 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993))).

FOOTNOTES

1. As of the release date of this opinion, Anthony Davide's direct appeal of the Office of Financial Regulation's final order is pending before the First District Court of Appeal. See Davide v. Fla. Office of Fin. Regulation, No. 1D19-2401 (Fla. 1st DCA filed July 3, 2019).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network