Williams v. Escambia County

725 So. 2d 392, 1998 WL 883087
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 21, 1998
Docket98-1183
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 725 So. 2d 392 (Williams v. Escambia 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
Williams v. Escambia County, 725 So. 2d 392, 1998 WL 883087 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

725 So.2d 392 (1998)

Bruce O. WILLIAMS, J.R. Knight, et al., Appellants,
v.
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, Florida, a political, etc., Appellees.

No. 98-1183.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 21, 1998.
Rehearing Denied February 2, 1999.

Louis K. Rosenbloum, Pensacola, Robert G. Kerrigan, Pensacola, and J. Michael Huey, Tallahassee, for Appellants.

David G. Tucker, Pensacola, and Gregory T. Stewart, Tallahassee, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We approve the trial judge's order dismissing the appellants' class action suit seeking relief from the provisions of Escambia County Ordinance No. 89-11. We agree with the conclusion that the county had the authority to enact this ordinance and to make reasonable classification of the long-term leased property for the purpose of special assessments. Imposing assessments on the leasehold interests for mosquito control and police protection was permissible and legal.

We reject the appellants' contention that the ordinance violates Section 10, Article I and Section 9(a) of Article VII of the Florida Constitution, and Section 10, Article I of the United States Constitution, or Chapter 199 and Section 196.199(2)(a), Florida *393 Statutes. We likewise reject the argument that the ordinance constitutes a breach of contract or impairs the obligations of contract between itself and the appellant class.[1]

AFFIRMED.

MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ., and McDONALD, PARKER LEE, Senior Judge, concur.

NOTES

[1] The trial judge also dismissed the action because of failure to join an indispensable party and failing to serve the Attorney General or State Attorney. These errors could have been corrected. We construe the order of dismissal with prejudice to be for reasons enunciated above and not these.

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

Related

QUIETWATER ENTERTAINMENT v. Escambia County
890 So. 2d 525 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Donnelly v. Marion County
851 So. 2d 256 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
725 So. 2d 392, 1998 WL 883087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-escambia-county-fladistctapp-1998.