Turcotte v. City of Coconut Creek

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Turcotte v. City of Coconut Creek

88 So. 3d 296, 2012 WL 1314404, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6040

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 18, 2012

DocketNo. 4D10-4333

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 So. 3d 296 (Turcotte v. City of Coconut Creek) 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

Turcotte v. City of Coconut Creek, 88 So. 3d 296, 2012 WL 1314404, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6040 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal an order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. Appellants sought to challenge the validity of an ordinance enacted by the City approving an amendment to a development of regional impact (DRI) development order. Appellants filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. At the same time appellants filed their complaint, they also filed a petition for writ of certiorari, raising the same issues. The trial court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, as did our court. In our order of denial, we stated:

The circuit court correctly applied section 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), when it determined that the subject ordinance, which simply expanded the definition of a permitted use to include a hotel, did not constitute a substantial deviation under the statute.

We find that the issues raised in this appeal were previously raised and considered by this court in the prior certiorari proceeding. We thus conclude that res judicata bars this appeal, as our prior decision “clearly shows that the issue was considered by the court on the merits and relief was denied.” Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1258 (Fla.2004). See also Seminole Entm’t, Inc. v. City of Casselberry, 866 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that issues examined and rejected in a prior certiorari proceeding could not be raised again on appeal from an order granting summary judgment); Lake Rosa v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 911 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (affirming ruling that trial court’s findings in companion certio-rari case were res judicata and barred suit for injunctive and declaratory relief); Treister v. City of Miami, 575 So.2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (affirming entry of summary judgment for the city on the basis that the prior certiorari proceeding was res judicata of the issues raised in the original action); Rhyne v. City of Wilton Manors, 392 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (holding that appellants could not maintain an action seeking simultaneous certiorari and equitable relief, nor could they seek equitable relief after maintaining a certiorari proceeding).

Affirmed.

POLEN, HAZOURI and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal an order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. Appellants sought to challenge the validity of an ordinance enacted by the City approving an amendment to a development of regional impact (DRI) development order. Appellants filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. At the same time appellants filed their complaint, they also filed a petition for writ of certiorari, raising the same issues. The trial court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, as did our court. In our order of denial, we stated:

The circuit court correctly applied section 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), when it determined that the subject ordinance, which simply expanded the definition of a permitted use to include a hotel, did not constitute a substantial deviation under the statute.

We find that the issues raised in this appeal were previously raised and considered by this court in the prior certiorari proceeding. We thus conclude that res judicata bars this appeal, as our prior decision “clearly shows that the issue was considered by the court on the merits and relief was denied.” Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1258 (Fla.2004). See also Seminole Entm’t, Inc. v. City of Casselberry, 866 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that issues examined and rejected in a prior certiorari proceeding could not be raised again on appeal from an order granting summary judgment); Lake Rosa v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 911 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (affirming ruling that trial court’s findings in companion certio-rari case were res judicata and barred suit for injunctive and declaratory relief); Treister v. City of Miami, 575 So.2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (affirming entry of summary judgment for the city on the basis that the prior certiorari proceeding was res judicata of the issues raised in the original action); Rhyne v. City of Wilton Manors, 392 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (holding that appellants could not maintain an action seeking simultaneous certiorari and equitable relief, nor could they seek equitable relief after maintaining a certiorari proceeding).

Affirmed.

POLEN, HAZOURI and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 3d 296, 2012 WL 1314404, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turcotte-v-city-of-coconut-creek-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack