DANIEL T. UTLEY AND MATILDA J. UTLEY, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND DANIEL T. UTLEY, R. J. MCCUTOHEON, JR., ADDIE L. MILLER, WIFE OF M. P. MILLER; W. A. MILLER, R. L. MILLER AND ELIZABETH BELL, NEE ELIZABETH MILLER, WIFE OF W. J. BELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed an order dismissing a bill of complaint that sought to void special assessments for street improvements. The court found that a 1931 act sufficiently validated the assessments, despite some irregularities, and rejected the argument that the front-foot rule resulted in unequal assessments based on property depth.
No, the assessments were validated by a 1931 act. The front-foot rule, as applied, did not result in an inequitable assessment based on property depth because the assessment was not based on area.
“chapter 15511, Acts of 1931, was and is sufficient in its terms to validate and ratify the assessment here com [*883] plained of.”
Establishes the legal basis for validating the assessments.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants challenged special assessments imposed by the City of St. Petersburg for street improvements, seeking to have them declared void and the as…
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 Assessments cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal in this case is from an order dismissing a Bill of Complaint. The Bill of Complaint sought a decree holding void certain special assessments imposed by the defendant for street improvements, holding the lien claimed by the defendant pursuant to such assessments to be of no effect and to cancel the assessment cerlicates issued pursuant to such assessment.
The assessment was made under authority of chapter 9914 Acts of 1923. The assessments appear to have been in some repects irregular. It is doubtful that Chapter 14392, Acts of 1929, ratified and validated these assessments as that Act might be held not to apply to special improvements but chapter 15511, Acts of 1931, was and is sufficient in its terms to validate and ratify the assessment here com*883plained of. See Lainhart vs. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 Sou. 47; Dover Drainage District vs. Pancoast, 102 Fla. 267, 135 Sou. 518; Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530, 116 Sou. 449.
In this case the assessment was based on the front foot rule and, therefore, the inequality of assessment complained o'f by reason of complainant’s property being of greater depth than other property has no basis in fact as it would have, had the special assessment been based in area as was the case of Gast Realty & Investment Co. et al. vs. Cheneider Granite Co., 240 U. S. 55, 60 Law Ed. 523.
The decree should be affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the Florida cases above cited. It is sc? ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J. and Whitfield, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Utley v. City of St. Petersburg, 121 Fla. 268 (Fla. 1935)…Per Curiam. This is the second appearance of this case here. See Utley, et al., v. City of St. Petersburg, 106 Fla. 882, 144 Sou. 57. A companion case has also been determined by this Court. See Utley, et al., v. City of St. Petersburg, 111 Fla. 844, 149 Sou. 806. In both of these cases we held that Chapter 13511, Acts of the Legislature of 1934, [*269] cured any def…
Authorities Cited
- Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1917)
- Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1928)
- Gast Realty & Inv. Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1916)
- Dover Drainage Dist. v. Pancoast, 102 Fla. 267 (Fla. 1931)