CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., V. C. MANN
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision ordering the City of Jacksonville to reissue a building permit. The Court held that the City could not revoke a permit based on speculation about future illegal use, but retained the power to abate a nuisance if it actually occurred.
No, a municipality cannot revoke a building permit based on speculation about future illegal use. The City's power to protect its citizens from nuisance is prospective, to be exercised if and when a nuisance occurs.
“Whatever power the City possessed was exhausted when the permit was granted.”
Establishes that the City's authority to regulate the issuance of the permit was complete upon granting it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Jacksonville issued a permit for the construction of a factory building. Later, the City revoked the permit at the request of citizens who…
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.
The City of Jaksonville has appealed from a judgment in mandamus commanding, in substance, that the City re-issue a permit to erect a factory building. A permit was issued to build a factory building. Subsequently the City revoked the permit at the behest of a group of protesting citizens who asserted that a type of business would be conducted in the building which would constitute a nuisance.
The question becomes quite simple: May the City revoke a building permit where it is later convinced that the building will be used for an illegal purpose? We have little difficulty in agreeing with the trial court. These elements drive us to only one conclusion. The area was not zoned against a factory building. Whatever power the City possessed was exhausted when the permit was granted. The City had no judicial forum to adjudge in futuro how the building might be utilized. The City maintains plenary power to protect its citizens by abating a nuisance when and if that condition should occur.
The judgment is affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of N. Miami Beach v. Steven's Mkt., Inc., 22 Fla. Supp. 5 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1963)…ich, as in this case, so vitally affects the interest of its citizens and property owners, and the general welfare of its inhabitants.” There is also the general statement by way of dictum in City of Jacksonville v. State, ex rel. Mann (Fla. 1946), 27 So. 2d 727, as follows — “ . . . The city maintains plenary power to protect its citizens by abating a nuisance when and if that condition should occur.” Knowles, supra, at page 822, seems to eliminate the necessity of an ordinance as a prerequisite to the st…
-
Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. of Greater Miami, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 706 F. Supp. 1525 (S.D. Fla. 1989)…tantial change in position or has incurred expenses such that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the right that he has acquired. Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So.2d 433 (Fla.1963); City of Jacksonville v. State, 158 Fla. 98, 27 So.2d 727 (1946). As we observed earlier, issuance of a building permit constitutes such a property right. Thus, a city may be equitably estopped to enforce a change in zoning regulations against one who has substantially altered his position in…