IRVING MILLER AND THE VILLAGE OF PINECREST, PETITIONERS,
v.
HARRY BOOTH AND DOROTHY BOOTH, RESPONDENTS; METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, PETITIONER, V. HARRY BOOTH AND DOROTHY BOOTH, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court decision that had overturned a county board's denial of a rezoning application. The court held that the board properly applied the doctrine of administrative res judicata to preclude reconsideration of the Booths' second rezoning application where no substantial change in circumstances had occurred since the first denial.
The court held that the Board of County Commissioners acted within its discretion in determining that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred between the first and second rezoning applications, and therefore the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law by reversing that determination.
[1] The doctrine of administrative res judicata applies to decisions of administrative bodies concerning zoning regulations.
[2] Administrative res judicata in zoning cases should be applied with caution.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 doctrine [of administrative res judicata] is applicable to rulings or decisions of administrative bodies, and to rulings of such bodies dealing with zoning regulations unless it can be shown that since the earlier ruling thereon there has been a substantial change of circumstances relating to the subject matter with which the ruling was concerned, sufficient to prompt a different or contrary determination.”
Establishes the applicable standard for administrative res judicata in zoning cases and the requirement of substantial change in circumstances
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Booths filed a second application for rezoning with Metropolitan Dade County. The Board of County Commissioners denied the application, finding th…
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 Administrative Res Judicata cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioners, Irving M. Miller, The Village of Pineerest, and Metropolitan Dade County, seek writs of certiorari to the circuit court, appellate division. We grant the petitions.
We find that the circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity, departed from the essential requirements of the law by reversing the Metropolitan Dade County, Board of County Commissioner’s determination that the Booths’ second application for rezoning was precluded by the doctrine of administrative res judicata.
“The doctrine [of administrative res judicata] is applicable to rulings or decisions of administrative bodies, and to rulings of such bodies dealing with zoning regulations unless it can be shown that since the earlier ruling thereon there has been a substantial change of circumstances relating to the subject matter with which the ruling was concerned, sufficient to prompt a different or contrary determination....” Metropolitan Dade County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Rockmatt Corp., 231 So. 2d 41, 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (citations omitted).
Although the doctrine of administrative res judicata “should be applied in zoning cases with great caution,” City of Miami Beach v. Prevatt, 97 So. 2d 473, 477 (Fla.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 957, 78 S.Ct. 543, 2 L.Ed.2d 532 (1958), the determination of whether a substantial change in circumstances has occurred, precluding the applicability of the doctrine, lies primarily within the discretion of the zoning authority itself. Gunn v. Board of County Comm’rs, Dade County, 481 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(citing Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648, 651-54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)).
In the instant case, we find that the Board of County Commissioners acted within its discretion when it determined that a substantial change in circumstances had not occurred between the Booths’ first application for rezoning and their second application. Therefore, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law by reversing that determination. Accordingly, we grant the petitions and quash the order of the circuit court, thereby, reinstating the Board of County Commissioner’s resolution denying the rezoning application.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delray Med. Ctr., Inc. v. State of Fla. Agency FOR Health Care Admin., 5 So. 3d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…; Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., 442 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Further, the determination of whether a significant change in circumstances has occurred lies primarily within the discretion of the administrative agency. See, e.g., Miller v. Booth, 702 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Gunn v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 481 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). We disagree with appellants’ contention that Bethesda’s second applica [*30] tion should have been summarily denied based on administrative finality. This case is…
-
Kirschner v. Baldwin, 988 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…inured to the benefit of all lot owners implicitly confirmed Kirschner’s right of enforcement. ADMINISTRATIVE RES JUDICATA The doctrine of administrative res judicata is applicable to rulings or decisions of administrative bodies. Miller v. Booth, 702 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Res judicata precludes the litigation of the same claim between the same parties on the same cause of action. Costello v. The Curtis Bldg. P’ship., 864 So. 2d 1241, 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The administrative res judicata d…
-
Fla. Transp. Serv., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 757 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (S.D. Fla. 2010)…istrative and municipal bodies with “great caution.” See Thomson v. Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation, 511 So.2d 989, 991 (Fla.1987). See also M.C.G. v. Hillsborough County Sch. Bd., 927 So.2d 224, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Miller v. Booth, 702 So.2d 290, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). For example, § 83(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments (1982), which was cited with approval in M.C.G., 927 So.2d at 227, provides that an administrative ruling should be given preclusive effect when the adminis…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Miami Beach v. Prevatt, 97 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1957)
- Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. The Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Rockmatt Corp., 231 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Wags Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Prevatt, 355 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1958)
- Private Brands, Inc. v. United States, 355 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1958)
- Gunn v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 481 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)