STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., F. W. KAY,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ETC., AND GEORGE N. SHAW, AS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that without the relevant municipal ordinance being part of the record, the appellate court cannot consider its applicability, and thus, the lower court's decision must be affirmed.
Appellant sought to transfer a liquor dealer's license to a new location. The City refused, citing a municipal ordinance. The appellant contended the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Notice Of Municipal Ordinances cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal is from order and judgment granting motion to quash and dismissing alternative writ of mandamus.
The appellant sought to have a license authorizing him to engage in the business of a liquor dealer, selling at retail in package only and not to be consumed on the premises, at No. 16 Northwest 17th Avenue in Miami, Florida, so transferred as to permit him to conduct such business at a new location, viz: No. 1667-69 West Flagler Street.
It is alleged that the City refused to issue the permit for transfer upon the ground that Ordinance No. 2896 of the City of Miami did prohibit the issuance to the Relator of a *27license because the location to which Relator wishes to transfer his business is less than 2500 feet from an existing licensee.
Appellant contends that the Ordinance No. 2896 has no application to one in his status.
The Circuit Court held contrary to appellant’s contention and made its order accordingly. Appellant appealed.
The ordinance which appellant attacks as not being applicable to appellant’s status is not made a part of the record and is not before us for construction. We cannot take judicial cognizance of a municipal ordinance. See Stephens v. Anderson, 75 Fla. 575, 79 So. 205 and cases there cited.
Therefore, the judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed. See Alper v. Tomlinson, 157 Fla. 471, 26 So. (2nd) 338.
Without the ordinance being pleaded in the court below no clear legal right to the relief prayed could be shown, and showing of clear legal right to the relief is essential to entitle one to prevail in mandamus. See State ex rel. Palmer v. Gray, 92 Fla. 1123, 111 So. 242; City of Bradenton v. Perry, 118 Fla. 838, 160 So. 506; Norris et al. v. Chancey et al., 129 Fla. 194, 176 So. 78.
So the order appealed from must be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Conrad v. Jackson, 107 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1958)…ule is that courts cannot take judicial cognizance of municipal ordinances. We consequently cannot inquire into the provisions of an ordinance which is not before us. Stephens v. Anderson, 75 Fla. 575, 79 So. 205; State ex rel. Kay v. City of Miami, 158 Fla. 26, 27 So. 2d 413. An opinion of the Chancellor supporting the decree includes- several verbatim quotations from the zoning ordinance. Inasmuch as neither of the parties disputes the accuracy of these particular quotations, we accord to them the presum…
-
Holmes v. State, 273 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1972)…involving municipal ordinances where the ordinances were not introduced into evidence or properly made a part of the record on appeal, reasoning that “We cannot take judicial cognizance of a municipal ordinance.” State ex rel. Kay v. City of Miami, 158 Fla. 26, 27 So. 2d 413 (1946). See also State ex rel. Donnelly v. Teasdale, 21 Fla. 652 (1855); Ferlita v. Jones, 50 Fla. 218, 39 So. 593 (1905); Stephens v. An [*754] derson, 75 Fla. 575, 577, 79 So. 205 (1918); City of Miami v. Thigpen, 151 Fla. 800, 11…
-
Lester v. State, 754 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…nces ... are available in printed copies or as certified copies,” we decline to do so here where, among other things, no copy has been furnished. See also Holmes v. State, 273 [*749] So. 2d 753, 753-55 (Fla.1972); State ex rel. Kay v. City of Miami, 158 Fla. 26, 27 So. 2d 413, 413 (1946) (declining to take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance “not made a part of the record and ... not before us for construction”); Nicholas v. First Interstate Dev. Corp., 315 So. 2d 238, 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Haverty…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DeWitt T. Gray, 92 Fla. 1123 (Fla. 1927)
- City of Bradenton v. State, 118 Fla. 838 (Fla. 1935)
- State v. Chancey, 129 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1937)
- Stephens v. Anderson, 75 Fla. 575 (Fla. 1918)
- State of Fla. Ex rel. Dave Alper v. Tomlinson, 157 Fla. 471 (Fla. 1946)