Riverside Homes, Inc. v. City of Miami

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Riverside Homes, Inc. v. City of Miami

159 So. 2d 264

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 1964

DocketNo. 63-344

StatusPublished

This text of 159 So. 2d 264 (Riverside Homes, Inc. v. City of Miami) 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

Riverside Homes, Inc. v. City of Miami, 159 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an adverse final decree upholding the zoning of the appellee municipality upon the “fairly debatable rule”. In this connection, see: City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, Fla.1953, 71 So.2d 148; Village of Virginia Gardens v. Johnson, Fla.App. 1962, 143 So.2d 692.

. The chancellor’s decree arrived in' this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Meadows Southern Construction Co. v. Pezzaniti, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 499; Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 183. It was incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Videon v. Hodge, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 396; Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 706. Following an examination of the record, briefs and after oral argument by respective counsel, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the chancellor committed error in the record then before him. Therefore, his actions should be affirmed, without prejudice to the appellant to seek relief from the zoning restrictions on its property in the future, in the event of a change in conditions.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an adverse final decree upholding the zoning of the appellee municipality upon the “fairly debatable rule”. In this connection, see: City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, Fla.1953, 71 So.2d 148; Village of Virginia Gardens v. Johnson, Fla.App. 1962, 143 So.2d 692.

. The chancellor’s decree arrived in' this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Meadows Southern Construction Co. v. Pezzaniti, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 499; Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App.1961, 129 So.2d 183. It was incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Videon v. Hodge, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 396; Frell v. Frell, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 706. Following an examination of the record, briefs and after oral argument by respective counsel, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the chancellor committed error in the record then before him. Therefore, his actions should be affirmed, without prejudice to the appellant to seek relief from the zoning restrictions on its property in the future, in the event of a change in conditions.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 2d 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riverside-homes-inc-v-city-of-miami-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack