SAVE BRICKELL AVENUE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA AND SANTA MARIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, APPELLEES
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.
Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. appealed a dismissal of its challenge to a Miami zoning resolution affecting property at 1643 Brickell Avenue. The court held that Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. has standing as an affected citizen to challenge the procedural validity of the zoning resolution, and reversed the dismissal.
Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. has standing as an affected citizen to attack the zoning resolution on the ground that it is void or invalid by reason of departure from any essential procedure preceding its enactment. An affected citizen may attack how a resolution was enacted, but not what was enacted.
[1] An "affected citizen" has standing to attack a zoning resolution on the ground that it is void or invalid by reason of departure from any essential procedure preceding it…
[2] An "affected citizen" has standing to attack how a zoning resolution was enacted, but not what was enacted.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“An affected citizen such as Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. has standing to attack the resolution on the ground that it is void or invalid by reason of departure from any essential procedure preceding its enactment. It may, in short, attack how the resolution was enacted, but not what was enacted.”
Establishes the scope of standing for affected citizens to challenge zoning resolutions on procedural grounds
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanta Maria Development Group sought to develop property at 1643 Brickell Avenue in Miami. The City of Miami enacted a zoning resolution affecting thi…
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 Standing To Seek Judicial Review cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, upon motion of Santa Maria Development Group, the developer of certain property at 1643 Brickell Avenue, dismissed with prejudice an appeal and alternative petition for certiorari filed by Save Brickell Avenue, Inc., seeking review of a City of Miami zoning resolution affecting such property. While the developer’s motion to dismiss was grounded on assertions that Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. (a) lacked standing to seek review and (b) was es-topped from complaining of defects in any public hearing notices, we find nothing in the order of dismissal or the proceedings below indicating that the Circuit Court determined the issue of estoppel, and conclude, therefore, that the dismissal order was based solely on the standing issue.1 Accordingly, this case is controlled by our recent decision in Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. The City of Miami, Florida, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.3d DCA 1981), where in a substantially identical setting we held that Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. had standing. We clarify that the statement in the cited case that Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. had “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’ ” was meant to confirm that Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. had standing to attack on the precise ground involved in that case, but was not meant to limit the standing of an “affected citizen” to an attack based exclusively on the ground that “required notice was not given.” An affected citizen such as Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. has standing to attack the resolution on the ground that it is void or invalid by reason of departure from any essential procedure preceding its enactment. It may, in short, attack how the resolution was enacted, but not what was enacted. See Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. The City of Miami, Florida, supra, n. 2.
For the reasons set forth in Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. The City of Miami, Florida, supra, we treat this appeal as a petition for certiorari, quash the order under review, and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Certiorari granted.
. We do not address and express no opinion on the merits of Save Brickell’s position, on the respondent-developer’s contention of estoppel, or the respondent-City’s contention that required procedures leading to the enactment of the resolution were followed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friends OF the Everglades, Inc. v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Monroe Cnty., 456 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…quarrel with the assertion by Friends and UKCA that they would have, at the very minimum, standing in circuit court to challenge procedural irregularities in zoning decisions relating to Port Bougainville. See Save Brickell Avenue v. City of Miami, 395 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Upper Keys Citizens Association, Inc. v. Wedel, 341 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. City of Miami, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We agree also that Chapter 380 has stated nothing to abrogate t…
-
Albright v. Hensley, 492 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…, where its property was located one mile distant from the rezoned property). . U.S. CONST.amend. V; see Town of Indialantic v. Nance, 485 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). . See Renard, 261 So. 2d at 838; Save Brickell Ave., Inc. v. City of Miami, 395 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981). . Upper Keys Citizens Ass’n., Inc. v. Wedel, 341 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977). . See City of Ormond Beach v. State Ex rel Del Marco, 426 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). . Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c).…
-
City OF Miami & Santa Maria Dev. Grp. v. Save Brickell Ave., Inc., 426 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…... 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...’” Subsequently, in Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. The City of Miami, 395 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) [the instant case], the District Court amplified its position: “... this case is controlled by our recent decision in Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. The City of Miami, Florida, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), where in a substa…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Valero v. State, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Save Brickell Ave., Inc. v. The City OF Miami, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)