Mendelson v. City of Miami Beach

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mendelson v. City of Miami Beach

386 So. 2d 1276, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17481

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1866

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 386 So. 2d 1276 (Mendelson v. City of Miami Beach) 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

Mendelson v. City of Miami Beach, 386 So. 2d 1276, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17481 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order under review which dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint herein with prejudice is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the complaint fails to allege with specificity in what way the plaintiffs have or will be injured by the zoning ordinances which it attacks and, accordingly fails to state a cause of action for either a declaratory decree as to the validity of such ordinances, Sumpter County v. Davis, 356 So.2d 899 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); see May v. Holley, 57 So.2d 636, 639 (Fla.1952), or for inverse condemnation, Mailman Development Corp. v. City of Hollywood, 286 So.2d 614 (Fla.4th DCA 1973), (b) the complaint was properly dismissed with prejudice as the plaintiffs were permitted one amendment to the complaint and did not thereafter seek any further amendments in the trial court. Hohenberg v. Kirstein, 349 So.2d 765 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order under review which dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint herein with prejudice is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the complaint fails to allege with specificity in what way the plaintiffs have or will be injured by the zoning ordinances which it attacks and, accordingly fails to state a cause of action for either a declaratory decree as to the validity of such ordinances, Sumpter County v. Davis, 356 So.2d 899 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); see May v. Holley, 57 So.2d 636, 639 (Fla.1952), or for inverse condemnation, Mailman Development Corp. v. City of Hollywood, 286 So.2d 614 (Fla.4th DCA 1973), (b) the complaint was properly dismissed with prejudice as the plaintiffs were permitted one amendment to the complaint and did not thereafter seek any further amendments in the trial court. Hohenberg v. Kirstein, 349 So.2d 765 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 So. 2d 1276, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendelson-v-city-of-miami-beach-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack