Town of Medley v. Caplan

191 So. 2d 449
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 1, 1966
Docket66-3
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 191 So. 2d 449 (Town of Medley v. Caplan) 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
Town of Medley v. Caplan, 191 So. 2d 449 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Opinion

191 So.2d 449 (1966)

TOWN OF MEDLEY, Florida, a Municipal Corporation and a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant,
v.
George CAPLAN, Solomon Caplan and Albert Caplan, Appellees.

No. 66-3.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

November 1, 1966.

*450 Milton E. Grusmark, Miami Beach, Frank E. Solomon, Miami, and Harris J. Buchbinder, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Malcolm H. Friedman, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ

SWANN, Judge.

Plaintiff, Medley, filed a complaint in chancery seeking, inter alia, to compel the defendants to comply with a certain municipal ordinance, No. C-16, pertaining to the operation of "junk yards." The defendants, who claimed to operate an "auto wrecking used car and parts business," obtained a temporary injunction against the Town. A final decree was subsequently entered, making permanent the temporary injunction and declaring, inter alia, Ordinance C-16 to be unconstitutional. Medley now appeals from this final decree.

Although a copy of Ordinance C-16 was attached to the complaint, it is conceded by both parties that it was never properly admitted into evidence during trial.

Municipal ordinances must be proven and the courts may not take judicial knowledge of them, as they may statutory law. Conrad v. Jackson, Fla. 1958, 107 So.2d 369; State ex rel. Kay v. City of Miami, 158 Fla. 26, 27 So.2d 413 (1946); Stephens v. Anderson, 75 Fla. 575, 79 So.2d 205 (1918).

That portion of the decree which declared Ordinance No. C-16 of the Town of Medley, Florida, unconstitutional is reversed, because the ordinance was not properly before the court.

No other reversible error having been shown, the remainder of the final decree is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

Yelen v. City of Miramar
324 So. 2d 643 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Nicholas v. First Interstate Development Corp.
315 So. 2d 238 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Holmes v. State
273 So. 2d 753 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1972)
Haverty v. State
258 So. 2d 18 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
City of Hollywood v. Coley
258 So. 2d 828 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Wilkins v. Tebbetts
216 So. 2d 477 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191 So. 2d 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-medley-v-caplan-fladistctapp-1966.