H. J. PARRISH, APPELLANT,
v.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 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 clarifies that a highway assessment statute authorizing charges based on frontage length is unconstitutional as applied to rural and agricultural lands because the front-foot rule cannot be fairly applied to such varied properties, though it may be constitutional when applied to subdivided lands outside municipal limits that possess the regularity of urban properties.
The front-foot assessment rule cannot constitutionally be applied to rural and agricultural lands generally because of the endless diversity in shape, area, character, and value of such properties, making fair and equal application impossible. However, the rule could be constitutionally applied to subdivided lands outside municipal limits if they possess regularity and uniformity in shape and dimensions similar to urban property.
“the authorization of assessments for the cost of constructing a highivay against abutting rural lands according tO' their mere length of frontage, without regard to the area or character of the land, or the quantum of benefits conferred, would ordinarily be incapable of anything like a fair and equal' application as applied to lands in the country”
Establishes that the front-foot rule cannot fairly apply to rural lands
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH. J. Parrish appealed a decision regarding the assessment of his property for highway construction costs in Hillsborough County. The assessment was c…
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 Equal Protection Of The Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
Brown, J.
On motion for rehearing, I have reached the conclusion thát the concurring opinion heretofore written by me in the above styled cause should, be modified so as to read as follows:
. In addition to the reasons advanced by Mr. Justice Whitfield, I think an act of this kind might not be validly applied to the general run of rural or agricultural lands because the authorization of assessments for the cost of constructing a highivay against abutting rural lands according tO’ their mere length of frontage, without regard to the area or character of the land, or the quantum of benefits conferred, would ordinarily be incapable of anything like a fair and equal' application as applied to lands in the country. Even as applied to city property, the front foot rule frequently works injustice in practical application, but by reason of conditions usually obtaining in rural agricultural sections and the endless varieties • in shape, area, character, use and value which we must judicially know to there generally exist, we must know the front-foot rule cannot there generally be applied with even approximate equality or justice, and without denying the equal protection of the laws. This principle' is based upon the radical differences which generally exist between city and country real estate holdings. There is generally some uniformity and regularity in the shapes and sizes—the width and depths—of lots in cities and towns, while lands out in the country, whether used as farms, pastures or groves, or for timber or turpentine purposes, or held as wild lands in their natural state for future use, development or sale, usually present such an endless, diversity in shape, area, value, etc., as to make the front-foot rule as applied thereto so utterly impracticable and unjust as to be-unconstitutional.
However, we would not be understood as holding that such an act could could not in any conceivable case be constitutionally applied to lands outside' of municipal limits. There is no such magic in the location of a municipal boundary line as would necessarily change the essential character of land holdings, in' the respects pointed out. Where lands outside municipal boundaries have been subdivided and platted into blocks and lots fronting on streets or highways or otherwise possess some such regularity and uniformity in shape, in width and depth, as usually characterizes property inside city limits, obviously the front-foot rule could be as fairly and constitutionally applied to one as to the other. In other words, the constitutionality of such an act depends upon the facts—the nature of the land holdings—to which it is sought to be applied.
Concurring opinion modified and rehearing denied.-
Terrell, C. J.' and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webb v. Scott, 129 Fla. 111 (Fla. 1936)…a. 642, 651, 126 So. 367. The validating Act was void because the Legislature could not have imposed such arbitrary assessments by direct legislative act in the first instance for the reasons set forth in Parrish v. Hillsborough County, 98 Fla. 430, 123 So. 830, and Utley v. St. Petersburg, 107 Fla. 6, 144 So. 53. For the courts to so enforce the Act as to diminish the legislative assessments so as to correspond with the benefits to the property arising from the improvements would be to go contrary to the…
-
Fisher v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Dade Cnty., 84 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1956)…ls that might result from the proposed improvements. In fact such evaluation admittedly was not made. In all cases assessments against benefited property must be fairly apportioned and lawfully made. See Parrish v. Hillsborough County, 98 Fla. 430, 123 So. 830. An assessment for special benefits must be “according to” or must have a “relation to” or some “reference to” the special benefit resulting to the particular property assessed in order to bring it within the exceptions to the homestead exemption pr…
-
Utley v. City of St. Petersburg a Mun. Corp., 106 Fla. 692 (Fla. 1932)…mary benefit to the public, to require the abutting property to bear the entire expense would amount to an arbitrary and unwarranted servitude which cannot be imposed.” City of Ft. Myers vs. State, supra; Parrish v. Hillsborough County, 98 Fla. 430, 123 Sou. 830; Smith Bros. Inc. vs. Williams, et al., 100 Fla. 642, 126 Sou. 367. The record discloses that there was never any determination by municipal authorities of special benefits accruing to the property involved in this suit, and, therefore, there was n…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence