Sutliff v. Metropolitan Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sutliff v. Metropolitan Dade County

296 So. 2d 523, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6968

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1974

DocketNos. 73-895, 73-1023

StatusPublished

This text of 296 So. 2d 523 (Sutliff v. Metropolitan Dade County) 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

Sutliff v. Metropolitan Dade County, 296 So. 2d 523, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6968 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are consolidated for all appellate purposes. The appellants filed a complaint in the trial court seeking to enjoin the County Commission from rezoning their property and praying that the County be required to issue building permits to them. The circuit court issued an alternative writ of mandamus and a response was filed thereto. After further proceedings, Jhe circuit court discharged the writ of mandamus. No appeal was taken from that order. Thereafter, the circuit judge, dismissed appellant’s complaint. Subsequently, appellants filed petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court seeking a review of a County Commission resolution which rolled back the zoning on their property. The circuit court denied certiorari and these appeals resulted from the dismissal of the first complaint and the denial of certiorari in the subsequent petition. Each judgment dealt with the same piece of property.

The property involved was one of three parcels considered together by the County Commission. The other two were commonly known as the Pierce and Larkins tracts and were dealt with by this court in Metropolitan Dade County v. Pierce, Fla.App. 1970, 236 So.2d 202 and Larkins v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App. 1970, 237 So.2d 343. The County has conceded in oral argument before this court that the same principles apply to the present appeal from the denial of writ of certiorari as applied in Aronovitz v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App. 1974, 290 So.2d 536 and in Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.3rd 1974, 293 So.2d 128.

It is not necessary to repeat here the court’s reasoning in the cited cases. It is sufficient to point out that they were not decided at the time that the trial court made the decision in the present case. Therefore, we hold that the instant appeals must be reversed with directions to the trial court to reconsider appellants’ complaint and petition in view of the holdings of this court in Aronovitz v. Metropolitan Dade County, and Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County, supra.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are consolidated for all appellate purposes. The appellants filed a complaint in the trial court seeking to enjoin the County Commission from rezoning their property and praying that the County be required to issue building permits to them. The circuit court issued an alternative writ of mandamus and a response was filed thereto. After further proceedings, Jhe circuit court discharged the writ of mandamus. No appeal was taken from that order. Thereafter, the circuit judge, dismissed appellant’s complaint. Subsequently, appellants filed petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court seeking a review of a County Commission resolution which rolled back the zoning on their property. The circuit court denied certiorari and these appeals resulted from the dismissal of the first complaint and the denial of certiorari in the subsequent petition. Each judgment dealt with the same piece of property.

The property involved was one of three parcels considered together by the County Commission. The other two were commonly known as the Pierce and Larkins tracts and were dealt with by this court in Metropolitan Dade County v. Pierce, Fla.App. 1970, 236 So.2d 202 and Larkins v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App. 1970, 237 So.2d 343. The County has conceded in oral argument before this court that the same principles apply to the present appeal from the denial of writ of certiorari as applied in Aronovitz v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App. 1974, 290 So.2d 536 and in Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.3rd 1974, 293 So.2d 128.

It is not necessary to repeat here the court’s reasoning in the cited cases. It is sufficient to point out that they were not decided at the time that the trial court made the decision in the present case. Therefore, we hold that the instant appeals must be reversed with directions to the trial court to reconsider appellants’ complaint and petition in view of the holdings of this court in Aronovitz v. Metropolitan Dade County, and Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County, supra.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 So. 2d 523, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutliff-v-metropolitan-dade-county-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack