City of Hollywood v. Hutchings

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Hollywood v. Hutchings

243 So. 2d 166

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 1971

DocketNo. 70-161

StatusPublished

This text of 243 So. 2d 166 (City of Hollywood v. Hutchings) 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 Hollywood v. Hutchings, 243 So. 2d 166 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the City of Hollywood from a final judgment holding unconstitutional a zoning ordinance as it applies to the real property of the appellees. From our review of the record on appeal, we are satisfied the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and its conclusions in accordance with law. We affirm on the authority of Kugel v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 282 and Manilow v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 589. See also Quattrocchi v. MacVicar, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 873 and Burritt v. Harris, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 820.

As an additional ground for affirmance we are compelled to point out that the appellant has failed to include in the record on appeal numerous items of documentary evidence which from the transcript appear to have been material to the trial court’s decision. - Hence error has not been made to appear.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, REED, and OWEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the City of Hollywood from a final judgment holding unconstitutional a zoning ordinance as it applies to the real property of the appellees. From our review of the record on appeal, we are satisfied the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and its conclusions in accordance with law. We affirm on the authority of Kugel v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 282 and Manilow v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 589. See also Quattrocchi v. MacVicar, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 873 and Burritt v. Harris, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 820.

As an additional ground for affirmance we are compelled to point out that the appellant has failed to include in the record on appeal numerous items of documentary evidence which from the transcript appear to have been material to the trial court’s decision. - Hence error has not been made to appear.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, REED, and OWEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 So. 2d 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-hollywood-v-hutchings-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack