Case Name: STATE of Florida ex rel. FLAGSHIP FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, a National Banking Association, formerly known as the Miami Beach First National Bank as Trustee, Appellant, v. The CITY OF KEY WEST, Florida, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-04-20
Citations: 330 So. 2d 851
Docket Number: No. 75-654
Parties: STATE of Florida ex rel. FLAGSHIP FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, a National Banking Association, formerly known as the Miami Beach First National Bank as Trustee, Appellant, v. The CITY OF KEY WEST, Florida, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 330
Pages: 851–851

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida ex rel. FLAGSHIP FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, a National Banking Association, formerly known as the Miami Beach First National Bank as Trustee, Appellant, v. The CITY OF KEY WEST, Florida, et al., Appellees.
No. 75-654.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 20, 1976.
Rehearing Denied May 12, 1976.
Therrel, Baisden, Peterson, Stanton & Stillman and .Howard A. Setlin, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Franklin, Ullman, Kimler, Entin & Katz, North Miami Beach, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Monroe County denying the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus, and granting respondents' motions to dismiss the petition.
Appellant contends that the allegations of its petition were sufficient to state a prima facie case for the issuance of the writ and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying the writ and dismissing the petition. We find merit in appellant's contentions and reverse the order appealed.
It is our view that the petition clearly shows appellant's legal right to the performance of the alleged duty sought to be required of appellees; therefore, the alternative writ of mandamus should have been granted and the motion to dismiss should have been denied.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.