CITY OF APALACHICOLA, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, APPELLEE; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, APPELLANT, V. CITY OF APALACHICOLA, 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.
The court affirmed the dismissal of counts based on mootness and affirmed the award of attorney's fees, finding the county's arguments without merit.
The City of Apalachicola sued Franklin County to block jail construction, alleging statutory violations. The county appealed an order awarding attorne…
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 Statutory Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The above cases have been consolidated on appeal. In Case No. 89-1370, the City of Apalachicola appeals from an order dismissing with prejudice all but one count of its “Amended Complaint” and “Supplement to Complaint.” 1 On appeal, the City complains of the dismissal as to Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint and as to the cause of action asserted in the Supplement to Complaint. We affirm on the basis of mootness.
The lawsuit filed by the City basically sought to block the relocation and construction of the Franklin County Jail. The subject counts alleged various statutory violations by the County, including Sections 380.0555, 164.103, and 951.26, Florida Statutes. While there may well have been violations of one or more of such sections, the relief claimed by the City, as to such counts, was limited solely to mandamus and injunctive relief. Inasmuch as the record shows that the relocation and construction has already been completed and that the new Franklin County Jail has received a certificate of occupancy from the Department of Corrections, the issues presented by such counts are moot. We note that the City has not addressed the County’s mootness argument presented in the County’s brief on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed in Case No. 89-1370.
In Case No. 89-2181, the County appeals from an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 164.104, Florida Statutes. We have examined the issues raised by the County, find them to be without merit and therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED as to both appeals.
ERVIN, NIMMONS and ALLEN, JJ., concur. . The Sixth Count of the Amended Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. on relation of Tallahassee Corporate Ctr., LLC v. Fla. Dep't of Mgmt. Servs. (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…e Rhea v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Santa Fe College, 109 So. 3d 851, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (affirming dismissal of declaratory action with prejudice; alleged controversy was moot); see also City of Apalachicola v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Franklin Cty., 567 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (affirming dismissal of claim for injunctive relief to prevent relocation and construction of county jail; relocation and construction already completed, rendering any declaration and injunction moot). Because this appeal is…