City of Hialeah v. Allmand

207 So. 2d 9
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 20, 1968
Docket67-536
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 207 So. 2d 9 (City of Hialeah v. Allmand) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Hialeah v. Allmand, 207 So. 2d 9 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

207 So.2d 9 (1968)

CITY OF HIALEAH, a Florida Corporation, Appellant,
v.
John W. ALLMAND and John Allmand Boats, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees.

No. 67-536.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

February 20, 1968.

Ralph F. Miles, Hialeah, for appellant.

Dean, Adams, George & Wood, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The City of Hialeah has appealed a final judgment directing it to permit the completion of an industrial plant according to plans submitted by appellee, John W. Allmand and John Allmand Boats, Inc. The City had previously issued a building permit to appellees and the trial judge held that the City was estopped from interference with the progress of the work.[1] We affirm.

*10 The appellant, City, assigns as error the entry of the final judgment and urges, under its point presented upon appeal that a ministerial act of its public works director is not a sufficient ground upon which to evoke the doctrine of estoppel against the City. The judgment of the trial court is sustained under the holdings in the following cases: Texas Co. v. Town of Miami Springs, Fla. 1950, 44 So.2d 808; Bregar v. Britton, Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 753; Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, Fla. 1963, 151 So.2d 433; City of Gainesville v. Bishop, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 100.

Affirmed.

NOTES

[1] "* * * It is the ruling of this Court that the Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonably use and enjoy the said premises in the manner contemplated at the time that the premises were planned and the building permit was issued by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to satisfactorily comply with governing rules and regulations pertaining to the enclosures, indicated parking spaces on paved areas, and air pollution. On completion of the foregoing by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant is hereby ordered to forthwith issue a permanent Certificate of Occupancy and occupational license to the Plaintiffs so that they might continue to enjoy the reasonable use of said premises for industrial purposes."

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Miami v. 20th Century Club, Inc.
313 So. 2d 448 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
City of Miami v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.
286 So. 2d 253 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)
1302 Corp. v. Village of Palm Springs
37 Fla. Supp. 92 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1972)
Fulco v. City Ice Service
59 So. 2d 198 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 So. 2d 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-hialeah-v-allmand-fladistctapp-1968.