JOS. D. FARISH, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, A PUBLIC CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
A cattle rancher whose property was damaged by flooding resulting from the South Florida Water Management District's Kissimmee River restoration project sought compensation for alleged taking without just compensation. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the complaint did not adequately plead a takings claim.
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for taking without just compensation.
[1] A complaint alleging a taking of property without just compensation must state a cause of action sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
[2] Allegations of planned flooding and damage to a cattle ranch operation due to a government restoration project do not, on their face, establish a taking requiring just co…
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“Appellant, owner of a cattle ranch in Okeechobee County, filed a complaint alleging that his property had been taken without just compensation by appellee, South Florida Water Management District.”
Establishes the nature of the claim and the parties involved in the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFarish owned a modernized cattle ranch in Okeechobee County bordered by and dissected by the Kissimmee River and an Army Corps of Engineers canal (C-3…
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 Failure To State A Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, owner of a cattle ranch in Okeechobee County, filed a complaint alleging that his property had been taken without just compensation by appellee, South Florida Water Management District. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it entered an order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and thereafter entered a final judgment in favor of appellee. We affirm.
Appellant summarized the pertinent allegations of his complaint in his brief as follows:
1. Farish is the owner of a modernized cattle ranch in Okeechobee, involved in the raising of beef cattle for sale to the industry.
2. The property is bordered by and is dissected by the Kissimmee River and an Army Corps of Engineers built canal, known as C-38.
3. The Defendant has been allocated funds to restore the Kissimmee River valley by damming the C-38 canal.
4. The program has been implemented, and as a result of the damming procedure, damaging flooding has occurred and will occur to an outlying corridor of land of the Kissimmee River flood plain.
5. Approximately 67% of Plaintiff’s property is within this outlined corridor. 6. Defendant has started purchasing land in the flood plain and corridor of the Kissimmee River valley, including land neighboring the Plaintiff’s property.
7. Defendant has made low, unrealistic offers to the Plaintiff to purchase his property.
8. 67% of Plaintiff’s property will be flooded and his cattle ranch operation destroyed as a result of the Defendant’s actions.
9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts, the Plaintiff Farish has been and will be substantially deprived of the beneficial use and enjoyment of his land amounting to a permanent appropriation, including but not limited to the ability to sell, mortgage and improve same.
We agree with the trial court’s finding that appellant’s complaint fails to state a cause of action and affirm. See Division of Administration, State of Florida Department of Transportation v. Frenchman, Inc., 476 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), pet. for rev. dismissed, 495 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1986).
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Division of Administration v. Frenchman, Inc., 476 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Frenchman, Inc. v. Division of Administration, 495 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1986)