YELLOW CAB MAXI-TAXI COMPANY, THE MIAMI DADE YELLOW CAB COMPANY HOME OF THE YELLOW CAB COMPANY, INC. AND NORMAN SHULMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND RED TOP SEDAN SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Yellow Cab Maxi-Taxi Company and its principal challenged Dade County's grant of a maxi-taxi franchise at the seaport and airport, arguing voter approval was required under the Home Rule Charter. The court affirmed the franchise grant, holding that because the county exercised specific statutory authority under Florida Statutes section 125.012(17) rather than the Home Rule Charter provision, the voter approval requirement did not apply.
The court held that because the county granted the maxi-taxi franchise pursuant to specific statutory authority under section 125.012(17), Florida Statutes, rather than under the Home Rule Charter provision, the Home Rule Charter's requirement of voter approval does not apply by its terms.
[1] A county's grant of a franchise for "maxi-taxi" pick up and delivery at a seaport and airport, when made pursuant to specific statutory authority, is not subject to a dif…
[2] A county board of county commissioners possesses the statutory authority to grant exclusive or non-exclusive franchises for taxi services in connection with county-owned…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“since the so-called franchise for "maxi-taxi" pick up and delivery at the Dade County seaport and airport was granted by the county pursuant to and in accordance with the specific statutory authority conferred by section 125.012(17), Florida Statutes (1981), rather than section 1.01(A)(14) of the Home Rule Charter, the latter's requirement of voter approval of "[franchises under this subsection" does not apply by its very terms.”
The court's primary holding that the statutory authority, not the Home Rule Charter, governed the franchise grant and that voter approval was therefore not required.
Dade County granted a maxi-taxi franchise for pick-up and delivery services at the Dade County seaport and airport. Yellow Cab Maxi-Taxi Company and N…
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 Home Rule Charter cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We agree with the trial court that since the so-called franchise for “maxi-taxi” pick up and delivery at the Dade County seaport and airport was granted by the county pursuant to and in accordance with the specific statutory authority conferred by section 125.012(17), Florida Statutes (1981),1 rather than section 1.01(A)(14) of the Home Rule Charter,2 the latter’s requirement of voter approval of “[franchises under this subsection” does not apply by its very terms.
The appellants have abandoned the other point presented.
Affirmed.
. Section 125.012 provides:
Any County and the Board of County Commissioners thereof shall have the power, in addition to the powers otherwise conferred:
**
(17) To grant exclusive or non-exclusive franchises to persons, firms, or corporations for the operating of restaurants, cafeterias, bars, taxi cabs, vending machines, and other concessions of a nonaeronautical nature in, on and in connection with any project owned and operated by the county. However, no exclusive franchise shall be so granted unless the Board of County Commissioners of said County shall award such franchise following receipt of sealed competitive bids in the manner prescribed by law, or caused to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county notice of the fact that it intends to grant such exclusive franchise and will at a time certain to be fixed in said notice, not less than 30 days after the publication of the notice, enter into negotiations with any interested parties as to the terms, conditions, and provisions of any such exclusive franchise. Such negotiations with any interested parties as to the terms, conditions, and provisions of any such exclusive franchise are to continue for a period of not less than 10 days before such exclusive franchise is granted.
. Section 1.01(A)(14) provides:
(A) The Board of County Commissioners shall be the legislative and the governing body of the county and shall have the power to carry on a central metropolitan government. This power shall include but shall not be restricted to the power to:
**
(14) Regulate, control, take over, and grant franchises to, or itself operate gas, light, power, telephone, and other utilities, sanitary and sewage collection and disposal systems, water supply, treatment, and service systems, and public transportation systems, provided, however, that:
(a) Franchises under this subsection may only be granted by a two-thirds vote of the members of the Board present and approved by a majority vote of those qualified electors voting at either a special or general election, [footnote omitted] [emphasis added]