CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, A SPECIAL TAX DISTRICT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 District Court of Appeal quashed a circuit court's decision approving a helicopter landing pad for a hospital, holding that the circuit court improperly applied a "balancing of public interests" test rather than the limited appellate standard requiring review of procedural due process, essential requirements of law, and substantial competent evidence support for findings.
The circuit court's judgment is quashed because it departed from the essential requirements of law by improperly applying the "balancing of public interests" test and reweighing evidence, when the correct standard of appellate review requires examination only of procedural due process, observance of essential legal requirements, and whether findings are supported by substantial competent evidence.
[1] A circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, must limit its review to whether the lower body provided procedural due process, observed the essential requirements o…
[2] A circuit court acting in its appellate capacity departs from the essential requirements of law when it reweighs evidence and substitutes its judgment for that of the fac…
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“when a circuit court sits in its appellate capacity, as it did in the instant ease, its scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the City: 1. provided procedural due process; 2. observed the essential requirement of the law; and 3. supported its findings by substantial competent substantial evidence.”
Establishes the correct three-part standard of appellate review that must be applied by circuit courts reviewing administrative decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe South Broward Hospital District applied to the City of Hollywood for a special exception to construct a ground-level emergency helicopter landing …
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 Scope Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
We grant the City of Hollywood’s petition for writ of common law certiorari and quash the circuit court’s final judgment granting permission to the South Broward Hospital District for a ground level emergency helicopter landing pad adjacent to the hospital.
The final judgment is quashed because the circuit court acting in its appellate capacity departed from the essential requirements of law in that the court improperly applied the “balancing of public interests” test, reweighed the evidence, and substituted its judgment for that of the fact finder. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 399 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), aff'd, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982), stands for the proposition that when a circuit court sits in its appellate capacity, as it did in the instant ease, its scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the City:
1. provided procedural due process;
2. observed the essential requirement of the law; and
3. supported its findings by substantial competent substantial evidence.
In the instant case, the final judgment makes no mention of any of these standards of review. Instead, the circuit court states that the test known as the balancing of public interest test, also known as the competing interests test, is the proper standard to be followed in resolving the issue before it.
In the final judgment the court stated:
That by a weighing and determination of the public interests which are involved in this cause and that through a proper application of the balancing of public interests test which is referred to in the findings of this judgment, the Court finds and determines that the more compelling and more important of such interests are in favor of South Broward Hospital District and against City of Hollywood, all with respect to the application of South Broward Hospital District to City of Hollywood for the granting of a special exception to allow the contraction of a ground level helistop at the site known as Memorial Hospital, 3501 Johnson Street, Hollywood, Broward County, Florida.
Thus, it is clear from the express words of the final judgment that the circuit court reweighed the evidence contrary to the teachings of Vaillant.
A district court, upon review of a circuit judgment rendered in its appellate capacity, determines whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law. Vaillant, at 1046. In the instant case, procedural due process is not an issue but we have determined that the circuit court did not apply the correct law.
DOWNEY, J., concurs.
LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.
LETTS, Judge,
concurring specially.
The Hospital urges us to heed the case of Orange County v. City of Apopka, 299 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), where the court held that the circuit court is the proper forum to “weigh all pertinent factors” to decide if the host government (the City) is acting “unreasonably” vis-a-vis the intruding governmental unit (the Hospital District) and balance the competing public interests.1 However, Apopka was rendered impotent when, in its grant of the petition for rehearing, it confessed error over the applicability of the statute relied on in the opinion. Moreover, Apopka involves a suit for a declaratory judgment initially filed in circuit court.
. Our attention is also directed to Village of North Palm Beach v. School Board of Palm Beach County, 349 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) for the same proposition. However, this case had its origin in the circuit court rather than before administrative bodies.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Johns Cnty. v. Owings, 554 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…mmissioners of Pinellas County v. City of Clearwater, 440 So. 2d 497 (Fla.2d DCA 1983); Palm Beach County v. Tinnerman, 517 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 528 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.1988); City of Hollywood v. South Broward Hospital District 504 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. dismissed, 513 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1987); Anderson American Law of Zoning, Ch. 27, §§ 27-29. If there are substantial grounds to support the zoning body's decision, the courts must affirm and not substitute their own views for that…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Fuller, 515 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…. Indian River County, 319 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), and otherwise5— to support the conclusion that the public interest would not be disserved and the consequent decision to grant the application. City of Hollywood v. South Broward Hosp. Disk, 504 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Encuentros, 511 So. 2d at 645; Grefkowicz, 389 So. 2d at 1041. For this reason, the judgment under review is quashed and the circuit court is ordered to affirm the challenged resolution of the county commission. Certiorari gra…1 / 2
-
Thomas v. Off. OF the Sheriff, 507 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…rt departed from the proper scope of circuit court review in its appellate capacity. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 399 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), affirmed, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982); City of Hollywood v. South Broward Hospital District, 504 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); City of Miami v. Lopez, 487 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). On remand, the Civil Service Board shall be required to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which its ultimate decision is based which sha…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 399 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Orange Cnty. v. The City OF Apopka, 299 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- The Vill. OF N. Palm Beach v. The Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 349 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)