BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™

STATE OF FLORIDA

[dca] DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

[plfName]	)
Petitioner	)	Case No.: [caseNo]
)	LT No. (FCHR): [caseNoF]
v.	)	LT No. (DOAH): [daseNoD]
)
[defName]	)
Appellee	)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

[MMM] [D], [YYYY]

[plfName], Petitioner

[plfAddy]

P: [plfPhn]

E: [plfEml]

W: TextBookDiscrimination.com

Get Booked Up on Justice!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents	iii
Table of Authorities	iv
Preface	vi

Introduction	##
Jurisdictional Basis	##
Statement of Pertinent Facts	##
Analysis: LT’s Actions	##
Nature of Relief Sought	##
Argument: 4-Part Test for Quo Warranto	##
Conclusion	##

Certificate of Compliance	-
Certificate of Service	-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
Johnson v Office of State Attorney 987 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)	##
Jones v Chiles 638 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1994)	##
League of Women Voters of Fla. v Scott 232 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 2017)	##
Martinez v Martinez 545 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1989)	##
McDonnel Douglas v Green 411 US 792 (1973)	##
State ex rel. Christian v Austin 302 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)	##
State ex rel. Gibbs v Bloodworth 181 So. 1 (Fla. 1938)	##
State ex rel. Pooser v Wester 170 So. 736 (Fla. 1936)	##
State ex rel. Smith v Brummer 443 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1984)	##
Whiley v Scott 79 So. 3d 707	##

CONSTITUTIONS
Art. II, §3 Fla. Const.	##
Art. IV, §6 Fla. Const.	##
Art. V, §3(b)(8) Fla. Const.	##
Art. V, §4 Fla. Const.	##
Art. V, §10 Fla. Const.	##

STATUTES
§35.02 FS	##
§120.569 FS	##
§120.57(1)(1) FS	##
§120.68(7) FS	##
§760.11(1) FS	##
§837.06 FS	#
RULES
9.030(a)(3) Fla. R. App. P.	##
9.100(b)(3) Fla. R. App. P.	vi
9.190 Fla. R. App. P.	##
60Y-2.001 FAC	##

MISC
4-8.4 Rules Regulating the Florida Bar	##

PREFACE

Petitioner, [plfName], was the defendant in the lower tribunal; and will be referred to in this petition as Petitioner. Respondent, [defName], was the defendant below; and will be referred to as Respondent. Pursuant to Rule 9.100(b)(3) Fla. R. App. P., [agcyName] issued the order that is the subject of this petition; and will be referred to as The Agency.

The following references will be used in this petition:

[A___]	Appendix1/

The following abbreviations will also be used:

ALJ	Administrative Law Judge
DCA	District Court of Appeals
DOAH	Division of Administrative Hearings
FAC	Florida Administrative Code
FCHR	Florida Commission on Human Relations
FS	Florida Statute
LT	Lower Tribunal

All statutory and rule references are made to their 2020 versions (unless otherwise indicated).

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Rule 9.100 Fla. R. App. P., Petitioner respectfully petitions this Court for a Writ of Quo Warranto directed at [agcyName], and shows the Court the following.

II. JURISDICTIONAL BASIS

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto under Art. V §3(b)(8) Fla. Const., and Rule 9.030(a)(3) Fla. R. App. P.. Quo Warranto empowers the Supreme Court to examine whether a state agency has lawfully performed its function (see Martinez v Martinez, 545 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1989); State ex rel. Christian v Austin, 302 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); State ex rel. Smith v Brummer, 443 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1984); see Whiley v Scott, 79 So. 3d 707).

In the instant case, the state agency involved is 1DCA (see Art. V §4 Fla. Const.), and the state officers are the panel of judges who acted on the case below (see Art. V §10 Fla. Const.).

Moreover, Quo Warranto can be examined only after the alleged impropriety has occurred (see League of Women Voters of Fla. v Scott, 232 So. 3d 264 (Fla. 2017)). Which is the situation in the instant case, as outlined in the statement of facts.

III. STATEMENT OF PERTINENT FACTS

Originating/Underlying Legal Dispute Between Petitioner and Respondent

On [MMMinit] [Dinit], [YYYYinit], Petitioner [didSomething].

[para001]

[para002]

[para003]

On [MMMend] [Dend], [YYYYend], The Agency [didSomethingToAffectPetitioner].

[para004]

[para005]

[para006]

[para007]:

“[cite007]”

[para008]:

“[cite008]”

[para009]:

“[cite009]”

IV. ANALYSIS

[para010]

[para011]

[para012]

V. NATURE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully asks this Honorable Court to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto to [agcyName] to have it demonstrate what authority it had to [doWhatItDid].

VI. ARGUMENT

This Court should issue a Writ of Quo Warranto because [agcyName] has improperly exercised its authority.

The standard for reviewing a petition for a writ of quo warranto can be established by combining the rulings of three fundamental Supreme Court cases.

In Whiley v Scott, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2001), Florida’s Supreme Court held that the alleged impropriety must have been committed by either a state agency or a state officer.

“This writ historically has been used to determine whether a state officer or agency has improperly exercised a power or right derived from the state.”

Also in Whiley, Florida’s Supreme Court stated that such a petition must show that the officer/agency exceeded its authority.

“...a petition for writ of quo warranto is directed at the action of the [agency] and whether such action exceeds [its] constitutional authority.”

In the second case - State ex rel. Pooser v Wester, 170 So. 736 (Fla. 1936) – the Supreme Court ruled that the complainant in such a writ must have been harmed.

“We permitted [Quo Warranto] in [two distinct cases] on the theory that the law will not permit a wrong to go without a remedy, which principle was reincorporated in [the Florida Constitution].

“...”

“The test [to see if Quo Warranto applies is based on] whether or not the one complaining has suffered an injury in his “lands, goods, person, or reputation” that should in right and justice be atoned for”

Lastly, in State ex rel. Gibbs v Bloodworth, 184 So. 1 (Fla. 1938), this Court instituted the fourth & final prerequisite – that the issued writ is the only remedy available:

“The writ of quo warranto will not be issued where there is another ample and sufficient remedy provided by law for the relief sought.”

When put together, these cases create a 4-part test for permitting a writ of quo warranto.

The alleged impropriety must have been committed by a state agency/officer.

The state agency/officer must have exceeded its constitutional authority.

The agency’s/officer’s action must have harmed the complainant.

The complainant must have no other means of redress.

This Petition satisfies all four items, as follows.

State Agency

The target of this Petition is [agcyName]; which is a state agency (pursuant to Art. V, §4 and §35.02 FS)4/.

Breach of Authority

Secondly, [agcyName] acted unconstitutionally. It did so by encroaching on the powers of a separate branch of government.

[agcyName] is an executive branch agency (see Jones v Chiles, 638 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1994), see Art. IV. §6 Fla. Const.).

[agcyNameB], of course, is a judicial branch agency (see Art. V. §4 Fla. Const.).

In Whiley, this Court held that it is unconstitutional for a judicial branch agency to act as an executive branch agency:

“...no branch [of government] may encroach upon the powers of another... The separation of powers doctrine is founded on mutual respect of each of the three branches for the constitutional prerogatives and powers of the other branches... [the judicial branch] must be equally careful to respect the constitutional authority of the other branches”

[argV001]

However, when [agcyName] [didSomething] it crossed the constitutional lines (see Art. II §3 Fla. Const.); and did so at Petitioner’s expense.

Harm

[agcyName] actions robbed Petitioner of his due process right.

[argV002]

[argV003]

Proper Remedy

Pursuant to Johnson v Office of State Attorney, 987 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), the only remedy available for examining the authority of a Court (or [a panel of] its judges) is a direct proceeding by quo warranto.

VII. CONCLUSION

As such, Petitioner has hereby satisfied all four prongs in the standard for reviewing a petition for writ of quo warranto. To summarize: a state agency (¶27) breached its authority (¶28-33) at Petitioner’s detriment (¶34-46); rendering quo warranto as his only means of redress (¶37).

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully asks this Court to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto and direct [agcyName] to explain what authority it had to [doWhatItDid].

Dated this [D]th day of [MMM] [YYYY].

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ [plfName]

[plfName], Petitioner

[plfAddy]

P: [plfPhn]

E: [plfEml]

W: TextBookDiscrimination.com

Get Booked Up on Justice!

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the size and style of type used in this document is Times New Roman 14-point Font (caption) and Courier New 12-point Font (contents); thus complying with the font requirements of Rule 9.210(a)(2) Fla. R. App. P.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this [D]th day of [MMM] [YYYY], I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by using the Florida Courts E-filing Portal which will send a notice of electronic filing to the attached service list.

/s/ Elias Makere

Endnotes:

1/ According to the pagination method outlined in Rule 9.220(c)(2) Fla. R. App. P. [A0010] means page 10 from the appendix.

How-To Guide: (interactive)

TextBookDiscrimination.com/Guides/Petitions/QuoWarranto.html

SERVICE LIST

[clrkNm], Agency Clerk [clrkEml]@fchr.myflorida.com Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (agency)

BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™