MANATEE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
NORMAN E. KUEHNEL, LUCINDA B. KUEHNEL, JOSEPH C. FINCHER, AND DONALD R. WHITAKER, RESPONDENTS
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.
Manatee County challenged a circuit court's reversal of the county commission's denial of a rezoning request. The District Court of Appeal, applying the narrow standard of review for appellate decisions under Florida Rule 9.030(b)(2)(B), denied the county's petition for certiorari because the circuit court properly found no substantial evidence supported the commission's denial and the county received procedural due process.
The district court denied the petition for certiorari because the circuit court properly acted as an appellate court, afforded the county procedural due process, applied the correct law in finding no substantial competent evidence supported the denial, and the district court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the circuit court on the evaluation of evidence.
[1] A district court of appeal reviewing a trial court's decision, which acted as an appellate court, must apply a narrow standard of review, determining only whether the tri…
[2] A petitioner is not entitled to two full appellate reviews when a district court reviews a trial court's decision that acted in its appellate capacity.
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 district court of appeal reviews, under rule 9.030(b)(2)(B), a decision of a trial court acting in its role as an appellate court, the standard of review which the district court must apply is narrow. The court must determine whether the trial court afforded procedural due process and observed the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes the narrow standard of appellate review applicable when a district court reviews a trial court's appellate decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 22, 1987, respondents applied to rezone approximately 16.42 acres in Manatee County from A-1 (Suburban Agricultural) to PDC (Planned Developmen…
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
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
HALL, Judge.
Manatee County’s motion for rehearing is granted. We withdraw our opinion of February 15, 1989, and substitute the following opinion:
Manatee County challenges the final judgment in which the circuit court reversed the decision of the board of county commissioners to deny the respondents’ request for rezoning. The county filed a notice of appeal in this court; however, we will treat the notice as a petition for a writ of certiorari and deny the petition.
On May 22, 1987, the respondents filed an application with the Manatee County Planning & Development Department for conceptual site plan approval and rezoning of approximately 16.42 acres of land located 1000 feet west of 1-75 and south of Moccasin Wallow Road in Manatee County. The zoning on the property was A-l (Suburban Agricultural). The respondents requested that the site be rezoned to PDC (Planned Development Commercial). In the application, the respondents described the plan as a transportation plaza and shopping area. The site’s primary use was to be a truck stop, but the plan also proposed associated uses such as a restaurant, laundromat, health club, and barber shop.
The Manatee County planning staff found the proposed site plan to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, with certain stipulations. The Manatee County Planning Commission, a group of private citizens appointed by the board of county commissioners who consider applications for rezoning and render nonbinding recommendations to the board, considered the respondents’ application and voted 4-4 to deny the requested rezoning.
On August 13, 1987, the board of county commissioners considered the respondents’ application, the staff report, the planning commission’s recommendation and the comments of interested parties and voted 4-1 to deny the request. The respondents then sought a writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of Manatee County. The county filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which motion was denied.
Following a hearing on the merits, the circuit court entered its final judgment finding that there was no competent evidence before the Manatee County Commission to support the county’s decision to deny the request for rezoning.
In reviewing the decision of the circuit court, we find the recent supreme court case of Education Development Center, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach Zoning Board of Appeals, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1989), to be controlling. That case reached the district court in the same posture as the instant case came to us. In Education Development Center, Inc., the circuit court reversed the decision of the city’s zoning board on the ground that there was no evidence to support the city’s denial of the applicant’s request for rezoning. On certiorari, the district court re versed, finding that “[t]here was substantial evidence to support the denial of the application ...” The supreme court quashed the decision of the district court, holding that the district court had exceeded its permitted scope of review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(B).
When a district court of appeal reviews, under rule 9.030(b)(2)(B), a decision of a trial court acting in its role as an appellate court, the standard of review which the district court must apply is narrow. The court must determine whether the trial court afforded procedural due process and observed the essential requirements of law. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982). The petitioner is not entitled to two full appellate reviews. Education Development Center, Inc. The circuit court in this case, properly acting as an appellate court under rule 9.030(c)(3), reviewed the record of the county commission’s hearing on the issue and determined that no substantial, competent evidence supported the county commission’s decision. We find that the county was afforded due process and the circuit court applied the correct law. This court cannot disagree with the circuit court’s evaluation of the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the circuit court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
FRANK, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)…ocess and applied the correct law.” Id. (emphasis added). When the above two standards are juxtaposed, we conclude that “applied the correct law” is synonymous with “observing the essential requirements of law.” See, e.g., Manatee County v. Kuehnel, 542 So. 2d 1356, 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA) (holding that when district court reviews decision of circuit appellate court standard of review is whether court afforded procedural due process and observed essential requirements of law), review denied, 548 So. 2d 663 (Fla.198…1 / 2
-
Snyder v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Brevard Cnty., 595 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…So. 2d 631 (Fla.1990). . Broward County v. Griffey, 366 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); See discussion of this type of development, Rathkopf, supra 27A-32. . See, e.g., Manatee County v. Kuehnel, 538 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), revised opinion, 542 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (wherein the court first held denial of rezoning decision was quasi-judicial reviewable by certiorari, then withdrew decision but in subsequent opinion did not offer basis for certiorari jurisdiction); Bailey v. City of St. August…
-
LEE Cnty. v. Sunbelt Equities, II, 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…lk County Board of County Commissioners, 578 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).4 Sunbelt disputes that conflict exists, and notes that our court has employed certiorari review in settings factually similar to the present case. Manatee County v. Kuehnel, 542 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 548 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1989). We agree that no material conflict arises between Lee County v. Morales and Snyder. Morales involved a comprehensive downzoning of an environmentally sensitive barrier island initiated by the c…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. City OF W. Palm Beach Zoning Bd. OF Appeals, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Green, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1989)