PINELLAS COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
v.
ALICE D. ROACH, A WIDOW AND H. C. ARTHURS
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 denial of a mandatory injunction sought by Pinellas County to reopen a road. The county claimed a public right to the road based on long-term public use, but the court found this use to be permissive, not adverse, and that the county had never officially recognized the road.
No, the public's use of the road was permissive, not adverse, and the county had not established any public right through condemnation, dedication, purchase, or conveyance. Therefore, the county was not entitled to a mandatory injunction.
“That the plaintiff's complaint for mandatory injunction compelling said defendants to remove the barricades admittedly constructed by them across the alleged public road is based solely on an alleged right to possession acquired by long continued user by the public; that no public right by condemnation, acceptance of dedication, purchase or voluntary conveyance is shown but that, on the contrary, such public user as was shown was permissive in character rather than adverse”
This quote establishes the basis of the county's claim and the court's finding that the use was permissive, not adverse, and that no formal dedication or acquisition of public right was proven.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePinellas County sought a mandatory injunction to compel defendants to remove barricades from a road, asserting a public right of way based on long-ter…
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 Permissive User cases and more on FLexlaw
Pinellas County was denied a mandatory injunction to reopen a road and appeals.
The decree on appeals recites:
“This cause came on to be heard upon final hearing upon plaintiff’s complaint for mandatory injunction, the answers of both defendants and voluminous evidence, both oral and documentary, presented by the respective parties to this suit, whereupon the court finds:
“That the plaintiff’s complaint for mandatory injunction compelling said defendants to remove the barricades admittedly constructed by them across the alleged public road *714is based solely on an alleged right to possession acquired by long continued user by the public; that no public right by condemnation, acceptance of dedication, purchase or voluntary conveyance is shown but that, on the contrary, such public user as was shown was permissive in character rather than adverse; that it affirmatively appears that the defendants were not aware, nor had they any reason to be aware, of any claim of public right during the more than fifty years during which the road in question had existed, and that the plaintiff has at no time during said period ever taken any official cognizance of said alleged public road, ...”
Whereupon relief was denied to the county.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., ADAMS, BARNS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Supal v. Miller, 455 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…enerally a legally organized political entity, such as a city or county, which represents the general public in establishment of a public prescriptive easement. 2 Fla.Jur.2d Adverse Possession § 54. See, e.g., Pinellas County v. Roach, 160 Fla. 713, 36 So. 2d 364 (1948); Genet v. City of Hollywood, 400 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Lake County v. Gatch, 168 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Sumter County v. Brown, 123 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960), cert. denied, 127 So. 2d 679 (Fla.1961); Berger v. City of Cor…
-
Salta Inv., Inc. v. Silva, 584 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…in the instant case. See Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla.1984); Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 330 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1976); Finston v. Finston, 160 Fla. 935, 37 So. 2d 423 (1948); Joyner v. Bernard, 160 Fla. 681, 36 So. 2d 364 (1948); Valsecchi v. Proprietors Ins. Co., 502 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); 3M Elec. Corp. v. Vigoa, 443 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1984). Accordingly, the order granting Silva fees and costs is reversed.…