TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION; AND, THOMAS B. BUCHANAN, TERRY GOFF, JAMES M. GRANSE, BARBARA L. GREENLEES, HULDA GROBMAN, LOMAX GWATHMEY, WILLIAM KOOLAGE, EDWARD D. LLERENA, RICHARD L. MEAD, MARK MUCHER, ROBERT J. SCHOEN, CHARLES G. SEARCY AND JAY SMITH, EACH INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Petitioners challenged a county commission's purchase of residential lots on environmental grounds, alleging denial of substantive due process through ex parte communications. The circuit court dismissed for mootness after the county closed on the lots, but the appellate court reversed, finding the case capable of repetition and remanding for determination of whether the county action was quasi-judicial or legislative.
The court held that the petitions should not have been dismissed as moot because the issue is capable of repetition, as the county might purchase additional lots. The court also found that the nature of the county action—whether quasi-judicial or legislative—should be determined by the trial court on remand rather than decided by the appellate court.
[1] A controversy is not moot if the issue is capable of repetition, yet evading review.
[2] A governmental decision to purchase land is generally considered legislative action, not quasi-judicial action reviewable by certiorari.
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“the petitions should not have been dismissed for mootness, and that the dismissal was a departure from the essential requirements of law as defined in Haines City Community Development v. Heggs”
Establishes that the circuit court erred in dismissing the case as moot and that such dismissal violated essential legal requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County voted to purchase fifty residential lots due to their environmental significance. Petitioners…
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 Legislative Action cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Petitioners filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court to review action of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County regarding the purchase of a number of residential lots because of the environmental significance of the lots. The basis of petitioners’ claim was that there had been a denial of substantive due process in that there had been ex parte communications between commissioners and others regarding the purchase of the lots.
The county then took additional action to reduce the number of lots from fifty to thirty-four, and the petitioners filed a second petition for writ of certiorari from that action. The circuit court concluded that after the county had closed on the thirty-four lots, the petitions for certiorari became moot and dismissed them.
Petitioners have filed this petition for writ of certiorari from the dismissals for mootness. They argue that the issue is capable of repetition, and for that reason, should be reviewed pursuant to Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1984). Petitioners argue that the county may purchase the additional lots, a contention which the county does not deny. In view of the foregoing, we agree that the petitions should not have been dismissed for mootness, and that the dismissal was a departure from the essential requirements of law as defined in Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1995).
Although we find that the dismissals for mootness were improper, we question whether this governmental action was quasi-judicial and can be reviewed in the circuit court by certiorari. In response to the county’s argument in the court below that its action was legislative, the petitioners took the position that it was quasi-judicial under Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1993). Snyder, however, involved the governmental regulation of the use of private property. This case does not involve land use, but rather a decision by the county to purchase land. Although such a decision as this would appear to be legislative, that issue, we think, should first be addressed by the trial court on remand.
GUNTHER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eugene Holly, M.D. v. Albert W. Auld, M.D., 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984)
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)