SAVE BRICKELL AVENUE, INC., A CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Third District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court's dismissal of Save Brickell Avenue's challenge to a Miami zoning resolution, holding that a nonprofit corporation devoted to safeguarding neighborhood zoning has standing as an "affected citizen" to challenge a zoning enactment on procedural grounds, specifically the failure to provide required notice.
Yes. Save Brickell Avenue, as a corporation purportedly devoted to safeguarding the zoning of the area, qualifies as an "affected citizen" with standing to attack the zoning resolution on the procedural ground that required notice was not given. However, this holding is limited to the standing to raise the notice contention and does not confer ability to challenge the resolution as an unreasonable exercise of legislative power.
[1] A corporation devoted to safeguarding zoning in an area has standing as an "affected citizen" to challenge a zoning resolution on the ground that it is void or invalid du…
[2] A nonprofit corporation may be considered a "citizen" for the purpose of establishing standing to challenge a zoning resolution.
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“As a corporation purportedly devoted to safeguarding the zoning of the area, Save Brickell Avenue is an "affected . .. citizen" which has standing to attack the enactment in question on the ground, which was asserted below, that it is void or invalid because the "required notice was not given."”
Establishes the core holding that nonprofit corporations devoted to safeguarding zoning have standing as affected citizens to challenge zoning enactments on notice grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSave Brickell Avenue, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, challenged a City of Miami zoning resolution affecting property at 1581-1597 Brickell Avenue. 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 Right Of Access To The Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The appellate division of the circuit court dismissed, for lack of standing, an appeal taken by the Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. from a city of Miami zoning resolution affecting property at 1581-1597 Brickell Avenue. We disagree with that ruling.1 As a corporation purportedly devoted to safeguarding the zoning of the area, Save Bric-kell Avenue is an “affected . .. citizen” which has standing to attack the enactment in question on the ground, which was asserted below, that it is void or invalid because the “required notice was not given.” Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832, 838 (Fla.1972); see, Florida Wildlife Federation v. State Department of Environmental Regulation, 390 So. 2d 64, 68 (Fla.1980) (nonprofit corporation is “citizen” for standing purposes.)2 Upper Keys Citizens Association, Inc. v. Wedel, 341 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) is precisely on point and requires this conclusion. See also, United Teachers of Dade v. Save Brickell Avenue, Inc., 378 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); City of Miami v. Save Brickell Avenue, Inc., 359 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (table; per curiam opinion).3 For these reasons, the order under review is quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.4
Certiorari granted.
. We have treated the appeal filed in this court as a petition for certiorari because the proceeding in the circuit court was itself an appeal. Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(B). Compare, Allapattah Community Ass’n., Inc. v. City of Miami, 379 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 1980); United Teachers of Dade v. Save Brickell Avenue, Inc., 378 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), holding that an appeal lies from a circuit court zoning decision disposing of a certiorari petition below.
. This holding is confined to the petitioner’s standing to raise this contention. It plainly has no ability to make any other claim to the effect that the resolution is an “unreasonable exercise of legislative power.” Renard v. Dade County, supra, 261 So. 2d at 838; Hemisphere Equity Realty Co., Inc. v. Key Biscayne Property Taxpayers Ass’n., 369 So. 2d 996, 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
. Chabau v. Dade County, 385 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) and F & R Builders, Inc. v. Durant, 390 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cited by the respondents, deal only with the ability to appeal zoning decisions to the County Commission, as provided by the Dade County code. They do not concern the present issue of the right of access to the courts — a question which is governed by decisional law — and thus do not control here. Moreover, neither case, unlike this one, involves a contention that the zoning enactment in issue is entirely void. See note 2, supra.
. We express no opinion on the merits of Save Brickell’s position concerning the notice issue nor on the respondent’s contention that Save Brickell has waived the right to assert it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)…circuit court acting in its review capacity to review administrative action is appealable as a matter of right to the district court where it has already been directly “appealed” to the circuit court. Cf. Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. City of Miami, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), wherein the Third District treated as a petition for writ of certiorari an appeal from the circuit court’s final judgment entered in a zoning matter brought to the circuit court for review. We hold that where full review of admi…
-
Cherokee Crushed Stone, Inc. v. City OF Miramar, 421 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the court stating: “We hold such final judgment [from the circuit court in an original certiorari proceeding] is reviewable here by appeal and deny the motion to dismiss.” And see Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. City of Miami, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) holding that certio-rari is the appropriate vehicle to reach the district court where the proceeding in the circuit court was an appeal. (2) Odham v. [*687] Petersen, 398 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which also bases review by…
-
Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1983)…2d 948 (Fla.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1004, 98 S.Ct. 1660, 56 L.Ed.2d 93 (1978); State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974); Pinder v. State, 421 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Kidwell v. State, 394 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Valero v. State, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We find no reason to deviate now from this principle. Here, the appellant improperly attempted to raise the question of ineffective assistance of counsel in an amended motion for a new trial. In so doing, Williams failed to prov…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Renard v. Dade Cnty., 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972)
- Allapattah Cmty. Ass'n v. City OF Miami, 379 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Fla. Wildlife Fed'n v. State Dep't OF Env't Reg., 390 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1980)
- United Teachers OF Dade & UTD Towers, Inc. v. Save Brickell Ave., Inc., 378 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Hemisphere Equity Realty Co., Inc. v. KEY Biscayne Prop. Taxpayers Ass'n, 369 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Chabau v. Dade Cnty. & Key Biscayne Prop. Taxpayer's Ass'n, Inc., 385 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Upper Keys Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Wedel, 341 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Ponzoli v. Hawkesworth, 390 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- United Teachers OF Dade & UTD Towers, Inc. v. Save Brickell Ave., Inc., 378 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)