TELE-MEDIA CO. OF KEY WEST, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, MS. VIOLET E. DENNIS AND MRS. MOGI O'NEIL, APPELLANTS,
v.
MONROE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Tele-Media Co. of Key West appealed the dismissal of counts I through IV of its complaint challenging Monroe County's television translator system project. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that counties need not hold referendums for current governmental needs, that recreational expenditures have no statutory referendum requirement, and that the power to establish special tax districts is discretionary with the county.
The court affirmed the dismissal of counts I through IV, holding that: (1) referendums are not necessary for a county to enter into binding construction or service contracts for current governmental needs; (2) there is no statutory requirement to have recreational expenditures approved by referendum; (3) the power to establish special tax districts is discretionary with the county; and (4) the claims were controlled by the prior Cable Vision decision.
[1] A county may enter into binding construction or service contracts for current governmental needs without a public referendum when acting within its authorized budgetary a…
[2] There is no statutory requirement for expenditures on recreational purposes by a county to be approved by a public referendum.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“referendums are not necessary nor required for the County to enter into binding construction or service contracts for current governmental needs and requirements when done in due course of their authorized budgetary administration of public affairs”
Establishes the core holding that counties have discretion to contract for current governmental needs without referendum requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTele-Media Co. of Key West, successor in interest to Cable Vision, Inc., filed a new action against Monroe County seeking to challenge the County's te…
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 Special Taxing Districts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Subsequent to our opinion in Cable Vision, Inc. v. Freeman, 324 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975),1 Tele-Media Co. of Key West (successor in interest to Cable Vision) filed a new action ultimately sounding in five counts, wherein it sought by:
Count I-a public referendum so as to determine the public need and interest in establishing a television translator system by Monroe County with ad valorem tax funds.
Count II-have the court declare the expenditure of funds for a television translator system by Monroe County to be for recreational purposes, requiring the holding of a public referendum pursuant to the Constitution of Florida and the Laws of Florida.
Count Ill-have nine (9) special taxing districts created within the area benefited by the translator system and to have a special referendum held so that the citizens in each district be permitted to vote concerning their need or desire for such a system.
Count IV-have damages awarded for injuries sustained by the appellant, Tele-Me-dia, by virtue of the interference by the County system with Tele-Media’s cablevision system, which amounts to a taking without due process of law.
Count V-hold the lease agreement between the County and Largo Brand Corporation invalid, and to temporarily and permanently enjoin the expenditure of County funds on construction of a translator tower on the lands leased from Largo Brand.
The trial court granted a motion to dismiss as to Counts I through IV, based upon our prior holding in Cable Vision, Inc. v. Freeman, supra. This appeal was then prosecuted.2 We affirm.
Even, if the dismissal of Counts I through IV were not controlled by our earlier deci sion, the trial court can still be correct even if the wrong reason was given. In Re Yohn’s Estate, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla.1970); Croft v. Edwards, 353 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Supro Corporation v. Bridwell, 361 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Examining each count in light of the law of Florida, we determine that each count fails to state a cause of action, as follows:
As to Count I-referendums are not necessary nor required for the County to enter into binding construction or service contracts for current governmental needs and requirements when done in due course of their authorized budgetary administration of public affairs. See: County of Leon v. State, 122 Fla. 505, 165 So. 666 (1936); Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39 (1936); State v. City of Miami, 150 Fla. 270, 7 So. 2d 146 (1942).
As to Count II-there is no statutory requirement to have expenditures for recreational purposes approved by referendum. See: Sections 125.01(l)(f), 125.01(l)(w), 125.01(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1979).
As to Count III-the power of the County to establish special tax districts and to hold special elections is discretionary with the County. See: Sections 125.-01(l)(q) and 125.01(l)(y), Florida Statutes (1979).
As to Count IV-See: Cable Vision, Inc. v. Freeman, supra.
Therefore, we affirm the order dismissing the first four counts here under review.
Affirmed.
. For a factual background of this dispute, this earlier opinion should be reviewed.
. It appears that Count V may be independent of Counts I through IV, although we make no determination in this opinion as to the validity of Count V.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Condren v. Condren, 475 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…providing for termination of alimony upon the wife’s cohabitation with a male is improper. Accordingly, we order the trial court to strike that condition upon remand. Dominik v. Dominik, 390 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also, Wambst v. Wambst, 391 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sheffield v. Sheffield, 310 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.…
-
Bolton v. Bolton, 412 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…n would not permit even a male relative to be a guest of appellant. The private lives of the children and mother may not be so regulated. Trylko v. Trylko, 392 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 399 So. 2d 1147 (Fla.1981); Wambst v. Wambst, 391 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We otherwise affirm the final judgment in Case No. 81-364. The judgment of contempt entered against appellant in Case No. 81-967 is affirmed. SCHEB, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.…
-
Marilynn Trylko v. Trylko, 392 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…trate his disapproval of the mother’s marital misconduct and to protect the children from conditions the trial judge deemed morally undesirable. The law sets a different standard. Beaman v. Beaman, 393 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Wambst v. Wambst, 391 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Without competent and substantial evidence of the detrimental effect on the children caused by her lover’s presence during the mother’s visits, the limitation imposed [*1036] by the trial court cannot stand. Dinkle v. Dinkle, 322…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549 (Fla. 1936)
- In re Est. of Carl Sylvester Yohn, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1970)
- The Cnty. of Leon v. State, 122 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1936)
- State v. City OF Miami, 150 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1942)
- Cable-Vision, Inc. v. Freeman, 324 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Dale W. Johnson and Robert v. Clark, 361 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Croft v. Edwards, 353 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)