State Road Department v. Peter

165 So. 2d 771, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4428
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 26, 1964
DocketNo. 3932
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 165 So. 2d 771 (State Road Department v. Peter) 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
State Road Department v. Peter, 165 So. 2d 771, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4428 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the State Road Department of Florida in eminent domain proceedings in which the jury returned awards aggregating approximately $240,000.00 for twenty-six distinct parcels of land. Although the appellant sent up the entire transcript of the nine day trial, this appeal concerns only four of the parcels condemned.1

Several points have been presented, but it is necessary to discuss only one, viz., whether or not the court erred in permitting the jury to consider damages occasioned by business interruption. We find error and reverse inasmuch as the respondents laid no predicate under the controlling statute 2 for recovery of alleged losses due to interruption of business.

The issue may be pointed up in clearer perspective through the following chart:

[[Image here]]

In this context losses incurred in businesses are specifically limited by statute to established businesses of more than five years standing. Fla.Stat. § 73.10(4) F.S.A. Hooper v. State Road Department, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 515; City of Tampa v. Texas Company, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 216. In State Road Department v. Abel Investment Company, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So.2d 832, this court said:

“* * * The right of a defendant to damages for business losses as a consequence to the taking of land are derived solely from the statute and not from the ‘full compensation’ clause of section 29, Article XVI of the Florida Constitution.” (Emphasis added.)

Since business interruption damages claimed with respect to parcels 9, 21, 22 and 43 were not predicated on the statute, the cause must be reversed for a new trial or other proceedings consistent herewith.

Respondents’ motion for attorney fees on appeal is denied. See State Road [773]*773Department v. Mutillo, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 179.

Reversed and remanded.

WHITE, Acting C. J., KANNER, (Ret.), J., and REVELS, P. B., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Related

City of Miami v. Coconut Grove Marine Prop., Inc.
358 So. 2d 1151 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
State Road Department v. Levato
192 So. 2d 35 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 So. 2d 771, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-road-department-v-peter-fladistctapp-1964.