STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MICCOSUKEE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 Department of Transportation appealed a summary judgment in an inverse condemnation case, challenging the trial court's finding that the mere inclusion of property within a reservation map constituted a per se taking. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, adopting a narrower interpretation of takings law that requires traditional takings analysis on a parcel-by-parcel basis even when land-use regulations are deemed invalid.
The court held that mere inclusion of property within a reservation map does not constitute a per se taking. A traditional takings analysis must be applied to each affected parcel, and the invalidity of a land-use regulation as an unconstitutional exercise of police power does not necessarily mean a taking of the regulated property has occurred.
[1] A regulatory enactment declared unconstitutional as an invalid exercise of police power does not necessarily mean a 'taking' of the regulated property has occurred.
[2] A traditional takings analysis must still be applied to each affected parcel when a regulatory enactment is challenged as an unconstitutional taking.
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“A regulatory enactment declared unconstitutional as an invalid exercise of police power does not necessarily mean a 'taking' of the regulated property has occurred.”
Establishes the key distinction between regulatory invalidity and compensable takings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Transportation filed a reservation map that included the appellees' property within its boundaries pursuant to Florida law. The tria…
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 Per Se Taking cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the Department of Transportation’s Motion for Rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute the following opinion therefor. This case originated below as an inverse condemnation proceeding and involves the issue of whether the mere inclusion of appellees’ property within the boundaries of the map of reservation filed by the Department of Transportation pursuant to subsection 337.241(1), Florida Statutes (1987), amounted to a per se taking under the supreme court’s decision in Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1990).
The trial court granted a partial final summary judgment on that basis in favor of appellees, expressly relying on the Fifth District’s interpretation of Joint Ventures as set forth in Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority v. W & F Agrigrowth-Fernfield, Ltd., 582 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
However, very recently, the Fifth District reconsidered Agrigrowth, and in an en banc opinion, expressly receded from its decision therein. See Department of Transportation v. Weisenfeld, 617 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Upon careful review of that court’s majority and concurring opinions in Weisenfeld, we adopt the view taken by Judge Griffin in her specially concurring opinion. Judge Griffin’s exposition carefully defined “[t]he relationship between the invalidity of land-use regulation that interferes with property rights in violation of due process and land use regulation that effects a 'taking’ ...” Id. at 1080. “[A] regulatory enactment declared unconstitutional as an invalid exercise of police power does not necessarily mean a ‘taking’ of the regulated property has occurred.” Id.
Accordingly, “[a] traditional ‘takings’ analysis must still be applied to each affected parcel.” Id.
Because the trial court granted appellees’ motion based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, and because we discern a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether a taking of appel-lees’ property occurred, the partial final summary judgment entered in favor of appellees is hereby REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings.
JOANOS, KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur. . In adopting such an approach, we recognize that our opinion herein expressly conflicts with the opinion of the Second District in Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority v. A.G.W.S. Corp., 608 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review granted, 621 So. 2d 433 (Fla.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. A.G.W.S. Corp., 640 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1994)…The court also adopted the rationale of Judge Altenbernd’s dissent and certified conflict with the decision below. The First District Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion in Department of Transportation v. Miccosukee Village Shopping Center, 621 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Thus, the issue presented is whether Joint Ventures established a per se taking claim for affected landowners seeking just compensation or invalidated the statutory subsections as viola-tive of due process. As explained by Judg…
-
Miccosukee Vill. Shopping Ctr. v. Dep't OF Transp., 638 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1994)…PER CURIAM. We review Department of Transportation v. Miccosukee Village Shopping Center, 621 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), because of its conflict with Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority v. A.G.W.S. Corp., 608 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Recently, we q…
Authorities Cited
- Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp., 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990)
- Orlando/Orange Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. W & F Agrigrowth-Fernfield, Ltd., 582 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Dep't OF Transp. v. Weisenfeld, 617 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. A.G.W.S. Corp., 608 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)