CITY OF PLANT CITY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLEES

Fla. 2d DCA | 1981-06-19
No. 80-1980
SCHEB, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
399 So. 2d 1075 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1981) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Plant City appealed an order by the Florida Department of Transportation closing two railroad crossings within the city limits, arguing DOT lacked authority to do so without municipal approval. The court affirmed DOT's order, holding that state law grants DOT exclusive regulatory authority over all public railroad crossings regardless of municipal jurisdiction.


Holding

The Department of Transportation has exclusive regulatory authority over all public railroad crossings in the state, including authority to issue permits for opening and closing such crossings, without requiring municipal approval. There was sufficient competent evidence to support the DOT order leaving one crossing open.


Headnotes

[1] The Department of Transportation has regulatory authority over all public railroad crossings in the state, including the authority to issue permits for their opening and…

[2] The latest legislative enactment governs to the extent of any conflict with earlier legislation.

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

Key Quotes

“The department shall have regulatory authority over all public railroad crossings in the state, including the authority to issue a permit for the opening and closing of such crossings.”

Establishes the statutory basis for DOT's exclusive authority over railroad crossings

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Department of Transportation initiated proceedings to close three railroad crossings located within Plant City limits pursuant to state statute an…

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.


Opinion of the Court
CAMPBELL, Judge.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Plant City appeals an order issued by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) which closed two city streets that crossed the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. On a cross-appeal, Seaboard seeks review of DOT’s order leaving a third crossing open. The City argues that DOT lacks authority to close a railroad crossing that is within a city’s street system, absent the city’s approval. Seaboard contends there was not sufficient competent evidence to support that part of the order at issue in its cross-appeal. We find both of these arguments to be without merit and affirm the order. DOT initiated the proceeding to close three railroad crossings located within the Plant City limits, pursuant to section 338.-21(3), Florida Statutes (1979), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-46.03(2).1 Subsequently, Seaboard filed its own applications to close the three crossings. Both DOT and Seaboard acknowledged that these streets were within the City’s jurisdiction.

Public hearings were held at which time the City moved to dismiss the petitions challenging DOT’s authority to close a railroad crossing of a city street. The motion was denied and the administrative hearing officer recommended closing two crossings and leaving the third open. DOT adopted the hearing officer's recommended order. Section 338.21(3), Florida Statutes (1979), states succinctly: “The department shall have regulatory authority over all public railroad crossings in the state, including the authority to issue a permit for the opening and closing of such crossings.” Such clear and unequivocal language can only be construed to mean that the legislature intended to grant DOT the exclusive authority to issue crossing permits without requiring additional approval from municipalities. It would have been easy for the legislature to have provided an exception for municipalities and yet it did not.

We note that section 357.01, Florida Statutes (1979), provides that a city may require a railroad company to construct a crossing when a railroad crosses a city street. However, as that section was originally enacted in 1911 and section 338.21(3) dates back only to 1955, we must defer to the latest legislation to the extent that a conflict exists in the law.

Upon review of Seaboard’s cross-appeal, we find there was sufficient competent evidence to support the DOT order leaving the one railroad crossing open. DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1957).

AFFIRMED.

SCHEB, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur. . Fla.Admin.Code Rule 14-46.03(2):

Opening and Closing Public At-Grade Crossings.

The Department of Transportation will accept the applications for opening and closing of public railroad crossings from the governing body that has jurisdiction over the public street or highway; the corporation that has jurisdiction over the operation of the trains through the crossing; or any other applicant for a public at-grade crossing, provided that there is in existence an agreement with the governing body to assume jurisdiction as a public crossing. Authorization for such opening or closing will be a permit based on the order issued by the Secretary of Transportation subsequent to public hearing conducted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • City OF Holly Hill v. Dep't OF Transp., 621 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
    …hth Streets. We conclude that there is no competent, substantial evidence to support the findings adopted by DOT in denying the City’s application for a vehicular/pedestrian railroad crossing. See City of Plant City v. Department of Transportation, 399 So. 2d 1075, 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse DOT’s denial of the City’s application for a vehicular/pedestrian crossing and remand this cause for entry of an order granting such application. Because of our resolution of the issue involving the…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw