CITY OF MIRAMAR, PETITIONER,
v.
AMOCO OIL COMPANY, 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 City of Miramar sought certiorari review of a circuit court order that reversed the city's denial of Amoco Oil Company's application for a special exception to zoning ordinances. The court held that while the circuit court properly found the city's denial unjustified, the court exceeded its certiorari authority by ordering the city to approve the application rather than merely quashing the denial.
The circuit court properly found the city's denial unjustified and did not depart from the essential requirements of law in concluding the denial lacked factual basis and legitimate purpose. However, the court exceeded its certiorari authority by ordering the city to approve the special exception; certiorari review is limited to denying the writ or quashing the order reviewed, not directing particular affirmative action.
[1] A circuit court's review in a certiorari proceeding is restricted solely to the evidence presented at the proceedings before the agency involved.
[2] A court's certiorari review power is limited to denying the writ of certiorari or quashing the order reviewed, and does not extend to directing that any particular action…
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“A court's certiorari review power does not extend to directing that any particular action be taken, but is limited to denying the writ of certiorari or quashing the order reviewed.”
Establishes the fundamental limitation on certiorari authority that the lower court violated by ordering affirmative approval.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmoco Oil Company applied for a special exception to the Retail Business District Regulations of Miramar's zoning ordinances. The City of Miramar deni…
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 Special Exception Zoning cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
Petitioner, City of Miramar, seeks review by petition for writ of certiorari of an order of the circuit court, rendered in its appellate capacity, that reversed petitioner’s denial of respondent’s application for a special exception to the governing zoning ordinances.
The circuit court expressly found that respondent had complied with the performance standards set forth in the Retail Business District Regulations of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Miramar and that petitioner did not, by competent substantial evidence, show that the special exception requested by respondent did not meet the performance standards set forth in the regulations. The circuit court also found that petitioner wrongfully denied respondent’s application for this special exception. The circuit court’s order provided:
[T]he Defendant, CITY OF MIRAMAR, is hereby ORDERED to approve the Plaintiff’s Petition for Special Exception and to institute such proceedings relative to the grant of the Special Exception which is the subject matter hereof as are consistent with the rulings herein stated.
We find no merit in petitioner’s claim that the circuit court denied it procedural due process by denying its motion to supplement the record to include certain standards of the Miramar zoning ordinances. In a certiorari proceeding the circuit court’s review is restricted solely to the evidence presented at the proceedings before the particular agency involved. Fort Lauderdale Board of Adjustment v. Nash, 413 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
However, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law when it ordered petitioner to approve respondent’s petition for a special exception. In National Advertising Company v. Broward County, 491 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), we held:
We agree, however, with petitioner’s contention that the circuit court exceeded the scope of its review by certiorari where it directed the county to take steps to have the sign removed, rather than merely quashing the variance. A court’s certiorari review power does not extend to directing that any particular action be taken, but is limited to denying the writ of certiorari or quashing the order reviewed. See Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Railroad Commission, 128 Fla. 25, 174 So. 451 (1937); Gulf Oil Realty Co. v. Windhover Ass’n, 403 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court afforded petitioner procedural due process and that it did not depart from the essential requirements of law when it concluded: “The Defendant's [petitioner’s] denial of Plaintiff’s [respondent’s] application for a special exception was not necessary to accomplish a legitimate public purpose or protect the public interest; was not based upon any factual record; was in derogation of Plaintiff’s rights to the continued use of its property, and was in derogation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Regulations.” We also approve that part of the circuit court’s order that ordered petitioner “to institute such proceedings relative to the grant of the special exception which is the subject matter hereof as are consistent with the rulings herein stated.” However, we grant certiorari to the extent that we quash that part of the circuit court’s order that ordered petitioner to approve the special exception.
CERTIORARI GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
DOWNEY and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ABG Real Est. Dev. Co. OF Fla., Inc. v. ST. Johns Cnty., 608 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…request that we direct the Board to grant ABG’s application. A court’s certiorari review power does not extend to directing that any particular action be taken, but is limited to quashing the order reviewed. See City of Miramar v. Amoco Oil Company, 524 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Gulf Oil Realty Co. v. Windover Ass’n, 403 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). PETITION FOR CERTIORARI GRANTED; ORDER OF CIRCUIT COURT QUASHED. GOSHORN, C.J., concurs. W. SHARP, J., concurs in result only.…
-
ST. Johns Cnty. v. Smith, 766 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…record made in the zoning hearing under review. Second, a circuit court cannot remand toith directions following review by certiorari. See Gulf Oil Realty Co. v. Windhover Ass’n, 403 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); City of Miramar v. Amoco Oil Co., 524 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Eden Park Village, 699 So. 2d 334, 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED; Order QUASHED. COBB J., concurs. HARRIS, J., dissents with opinion. . John Schwab, Director of Solid Waste for the County;…
-
Seminole Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Eden Park Vill., Inc., 699 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…late capacity could quash the order under review, but it could not direct SCBCC to take a specific action. See ABG Real Estate Dev. Co. of Florida, Inc. v. St. Johns County, 608 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (citing City of Miramar v. Amoco Oil Co., 524 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Gulf Oil Realty Co. v. Windhover Ass’n, Inc., 403 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)), dismissed, 613 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1993). Therefore, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari in part and quash that portion of the circuit court’s…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Fla. R.R. Comm'n, 128 Fla. 25 (Fla. 1937)
- Gulf OIL Realty Co. v. Windhover Ass'n, Inc., 403 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Nat'l Advertising Co. v. Broward Cnty., 491 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Bergen Point Brass Foundry, Inc. v. Am. Athletic Corp., 413 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Fort Lauderdale Bd. OF Adjustment & City of Fort Lauderdale v. Nash, 413 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)