HEEB, ET AL
v.
TRUSTEES OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, ET AL.
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 the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund's establishment of a bulkhead line in Biscayne Bay, arguing the agency failed to provide proper notice, limited the scope of hearings, and violated due process. The court granted the writ of certiorari, voided the bulkhead line, and remanded for proper proceedings at the mean high water mark or with full statutory and constitutional hearing requirements.
The court held that the respondents violated statutory hearing requirements under §253.122, failed to provide proper notice, improperly limited the scope of hearings, violated petitioners' due process rights, and that the bulkhead line must be established at the mean high water mark or the respondents must reopen the record and conduct proper hearings with full statutory and constitutional protections.
[1] A public body fails to provide proper legal notice of hearings concerning the relocation of a bulkhead line when it does not adequately inform the public.
[2] Public bodies improperly limit the scope of hearings and deny the public the opportunity to present relevant evidence when determining the relocation of a bulkhead line.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Respondent trustees of the internal improvement fund and respondent board of county commissioners failed to provide the public with proper legal notice of the hearings held to determine the relocation of the bulkhead line from Coral Gables south to the Monroe County line in south Biscayne Bay, Dade County, Florida.”
Establishes the primary violation: failure to provide proper notice for bulkhead relocation hearings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund and the Board of County Commissioners conducted hearings to relocate a bulkhead line from Coral Gables s…
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 Public Notice Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Final judgment: Pursuant to Rule 1.260(d) (1) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure the successors to the public offices named as respondents have been substituted and the caption is amended accordingly.
This cause came on for final hearing on June 10, 1971 and the court having heard argument of counsel for all the parties, having considered the pleadings, the briefs and the record in this case and being otherwise fully advised makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law —
Findings of fact
Respondent trustees of the internal improvement fund and respondent board of county commissioners failed to provide the public with proper legal notice of the hearings held to determine the relocation of the bulkhead line from Coral Gables south to the Monroe County line in south Biscayne Bay, Dade County, Florida.
Respondents improperly limited the scope of the hearings which were held and failed to give the public the opportunity to present relevant evidence on proposed modifications of the bulkhead line.
*10Respondent trustees failed to maintain a proper record containing and reflecting the communications of interested groups and individuals who opposed the location of the bulkhead line at any point other than the mean high water mark.
The record in this case will only support the establishment of the bulkhead line at the mean high water mark.
Conclusions of law
This court has jurisdiction to entertain the amended petition for writ of certiorari of petitioners and grant the relief sought therein by reason of the provisions of §253.122(6), Florida Statutes.
Petitioners Anton L. Heeb, Jr., Nathaniel T. Ragland, Richard M. Mclver, Joseph E. Turner, Jr., David L. Vatter, Herbert R. Pruett, Edward Theodore Baker, Robert E. Still, Robert Hart, Jr., Marco A. Sierra and William M. Crook are aggrieved parties within the meaning of §253.122 (6) of the statutes.
The respondents established, approved and adopted a bulkhead line at the mangrove line contrary to the provisions of §§253.122(1) and (3) of the statutes.
The respondents violated the hearing requirements of §253.122 of the statutes.
Respondents established the bulkhead line without regard to the general public’s interest and welfare, without consideration or determination of any public benefits to be derived from their action and in violation of the essential requirements of law governing their actions.
Respondents’ actions violated the petitioners’ rights to due process of law under the constitutions of the state of Florida and the United States of America.
Therefore it is ordered —
A. The bulkhead line established by respondents is void and is set aside.
B. This matter is remanded to respondents to either —
(1) establish the bulkhead line from Coral Gables south to the Monroe County line in south Biscayne Bay, Dade County, Florida, at the mean high water mark; or
(2) reopen the record and hold hearings after giving the required notice pursuant to the applicable statutory and constitutional guarantees to receive all relevant evidence to determine if there is any competent evidence which *11under the applicable laws would justify establishing the bulkhead at any place other than the mean high water mark.
C. Jurisdiction is retained to insure compliance with this decree.
D. Costs will be taxed against respondents awarded to petitioners upon notice.