Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Cox

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Cox

54 So. 3d 1026, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 539, 2011 WL 222170

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2011

Docket4D09-979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 54 So. 3d 1026 (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Cox) 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

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Cox, 54 So. 3d 1026, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 539, 2011 WL 222170 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

WARNER, J.

In an inverse condemnation action, the Department of Agriculture appeals the trial court’s order denying its request for costs as the prevailing party pursuant to section 57.041, Florida Statutes. This action involves the Department’s destruction of backyard citrus trees of homeowners in Broward County in the Department’s futile attempt to eradicate citrus canker in this state. 1 Even though the Department was defeated in its claim that no taking occurred, 2 and the jury awarded damages, which resulted in a net award to the class of plaintiffs of $4,000,000, when the Department argued that no damages occurred, the Department still claims it prevailed because the class sought substantially more in damages than what the jury awarded.

We find the Department’s arguments to be frivolous. No matter how one looks at the facts, the owners prevailed on the significant issues. The mere fact that the owners sought more in damages than the jury awarded does not mean that they did not prevail on both issues of liability and damages.

Moreover, section 57.041, Florida Statutes, applies to all civil actions except those that are governed by specific statutes containing more particular provisions concerning the taxation of costs. See Morales v. Rosenberg, 919 So.2d 476, 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Sections 73.091 and 73.092 *1027 specifically relate to condemnation proceedings, including inverse condemnation proceedings. See Volusia County v. Pickens, 435 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Those statutes govern these proceedings.

Affirmed.

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

1

. The history of the citrus canker eradication program is contained in Haire v. Florida Department of Agriculture, 870 So.2d 774 (Fla.2004).

2

. Florida Dep’t of Agriculture v. Bogorff, 35 So.3d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), review denied, 48 So.3d 835 (Fla.2010).

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

WARNER, J.

In an inverse condemnation action, the Department of Agriculture appeals the trial court’s order denying its request for costs as the prevailing party pursuant to section 57.041, Florida Statutes. This action involves the Department’s destruction of backyard citrus trees of homeowners in Broward County in the Department’s futile attempt to eradicate citrus canker in this state. 1 Even though the Department was defeated in its claim that no taking occurred, 2 and the jury awarded damages, which resulted in a net award to the class of plaintiffs of $4,000,000, when the Department argued that no damages occurred, the Department still claims it prevailed because the class sought substantially more in damages than what the jury awarded.

We find the Department’s arguments to be frivolous. No matter how one looks at the facts, the owners prevailed on the significant issues. The mere fact that the owners sought more in damages than the jury awarded does not mean that they did not prevail on both issues of liability and damages.

Moreover, section 57.041, Florida Statutes, applies to all civil actions except those that are governed by specific statutes containing more particular provisions concerning the taxation of costs. See Morales v. Rosenberg, 919 So.2d 476, 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Sections 73.091 and 73.092 *1027 specifically relate to condemnation proceedings, including inverse condemnation proceedings. See Volusia County v. Pickens, 435 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Those statutes govern these proceedings.

Affirmed.

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

1

. The history of the citrus canker eradication program is contained in Haire v. Florida Department of Agriculture, 870 So.2d 774 (Fla.2004).

2

. Florida Dep’t of Agriculture v. Bogorff, 35 So.3d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), review denied, 48 So.3d 835 (Fla.2010).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 So. 3d 1026, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 539, 2011 WL 222170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-department-of-agriculture-and-consumer-services-v-cox-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack