Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

507 So. 2d 613, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 604, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6921

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1987

DocketNo. BL-76

StatusPublished

This text of 507 So. 2d 613 (Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation) 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

Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 507 So. 2d 613, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 604, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6921 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final order of the Department of Transportation (DOT) revoking several outdoor sign permits originally obtained by Henderson Signs and later transferred to Tri-State Systems, Inc. (Tri-State). The permits were revoked on the basis that the signs were found not to comport with the requirements of Section 479.01(10)(d), Florida Statutes (1977), which recently has been reinterpreted by DOT.

Both below and on appeal, Tri-State argued equitable estoppel, asserting that it had relied on assurances from Henderson Signs and DOT that the permits were valid before purchasing the permits from Henderson Signs. The hearing officer ruled that Tri-State failed to prove the first element of estoppel — that DOT made a representation of material fact contrary to a later-asserted position — on the basis of his finding that the testimony of Tri-State’s witnesses was “self-serving without some form of corroboration, and ... not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact.” The identical issue, under virtually identical [614]*614facts involving the same parties, has been resolved by this court in Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 500 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). On the authority of Tri-State, we reverse.

REVERSED.

ZEHMER, J., and J. LEWIS HALL, Jr., Associate Judge, concur. WENTWORTH, J., agrees to conclusion only.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a final order of the Department of Transportation (DOT) revoking several outdoor sign permits originally obtained by Henderson Signs and later transferred to Tri-State Systems, Inc. (Tri-State). The permits were revoked on the basis that the signs were found not to comport with the requirements of Section 479.01(10)(d), Florida Statutes (1977), which recently has been reinterpreted by DOT.

Both below and on appeal, Tri-State argued equitable estoppel, asserting that it had relied on assurances from Henderson Signs and DOT that the permits were valid before purchasing the permits from Henderson Signs. The hearing officer ruled that Tri-State failed to prove the first element of estoppel — that DOT made a representation of material fact contrary to a later-asserted position — on the basis of his finding that the testimony of Tri-State’s witnesses was “self-serving without some form of corroboration, and ... not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact.” The identical issue, under virtually identical [614]*614facts involving the same parties, has been resolved by this court in Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 500 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). On the authority of Tri-State, we reverse.

REVERSED.

ZEHMER, J., and J. LEWIS HALL, Jr., Associate Judge, concur. WENTWORTH, J., agrees to conclusion only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 So. 2d 613, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 604, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-state-systems-inc-v-department-of-transportation-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack