CITY OF EAU GALLIE, APPELLANT,
v.
LEROY E. HOLLAND AND EDNA M. HOLLAND, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and that the denial of a license was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Appellees sought a license to operate a trailer park but were denied, while others similarly situated were granted licenses. The property was zoned re…
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 Zoning Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Justice.
In State ex rel. Holland v. City of Eau Gallie, Fla., 65 So. 2d 877, the Hollands attempted to test the constitutionality of an ordinance of the City of Eau Gallie pertaining to trailer parks. We there declined to pass upon the constitutional question because we were of the opinion that it could not be reached in the procedural situation then prevailing.
The Hollands, appellees here, have now brought the ordinance to the attention of the circuit court, in appropriate proceedings, and have obtained a final decree holding the ordinance unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power without adequate standards. The chancellor further held that the action of the city in denying to the Hollands a license to operate a trailer park while, at the same time, granting licenses to others similarly situated was arbitrary and discriminatory, that the Hollands’ property is in an area primarily commercial in character, and that the designation of the area as residential is invalid and void. From this final decree the city now appeals.
We find no error m these rulings. It is true that the trailer ordinance, when read with the main zoning ordinance, permits the use of such an arbitrary discrimination as the chancellor found to be involved. See Drexel v. City of Miami Beach, Fla., 64 So. 2d 317, and Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Anderson, Fla., 74 So. 2d 544. On the validity of the zoning classification of the area wherein the Hollands seek to operate the trailer park, the chancellor’s determination is supported by City of Miami v. Hollis, Fla., 77 So. 2d 834.
Certain procedural points are sought to be raised, but we find them adequately answered in the brief filed in behalf of appel-lees.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. DREW, J., concurs specially.
DREW, Justice
(concurring specially).
The appeal in this cause was taken in March, 1956. Rule 36(6) (e) of this Court, 31 F.S.A., adopted in effect since March 15, 1955, provides that there shall be attached to the brief “an appendix, which shall contain a copy of the material portions of the order, judgment or decree appealed from or sought to be reviewed or enforced, together with any opinion of the court, board or commission, and any pertinent portion of any report of a master filed in the case.” The appendix “shall also contain a copy of such parts of the original record material to the points presented as the appellant desires the Court to read.” This Court has discussed this rule in several opinions and has pointed out the necessity of complying with it.
The appendix attached to the brief of the appellant in this cause does not comply with the rule. It is wholly insufficient to afford any basis for the Court’s consideration of the factual situation presented in the case.
The decree of the chancellor comes to this Court with the presumption of correctness. The burden is upon the appellant to demonstrate error and the mechanics for doing so are provided in the rules of this Court.
Because of the utter failure of the appellant to meet this requirement, as well as for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Mr. Justice HOBSON, I concur in the judgment of affirmance in this cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rinker Materials Corp. v. City OF N. Miami, 286 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1973)…5 So. 2d 582 (Fla.App.2d 1960); and State ex rel. Lacedonia v. Harvey, 68 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1953). . Owen v. Cheney, 238 So. 2d 650 (Fla.App.2d 1970); Rotenberg v. City of Fort Pierce, 202 So. 2d 782 (Fla.App.4th 1967); City of Eau Gallie v. Holland, 98 So. 2d 786 (Fla.1957). .See footnote 3. . Webster’s Dictionary, Fifth Edition.…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Lorene Ware v. City OF Miami, 107 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…and not a right); Drexel v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 317 (construction of parking garage); North Bay Village v. Blackwell, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 524 (zoning ordinance on location of businesses); City of Eau Gallie v. Holland, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 786 (trailer park ordinance); City of Naples v. State ex rel. Abbott, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 78 (licensing of building contractors). See also 33 Am.Jur., Licenses, § 60. As much as it might enure to the benefit of the public, as an exercise of the ci…
-
J. H. S. Homes, Inc. v. Cnty. OF Broward, 140 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…people. City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, Fla., 71 So. 2d 148. * * * * * * “We are impelled to the view that the decree should be reversed with directions to grant appellant the relief he sought.” In the case of City of Eau Gallic v. Holland, Fla., 98 So. 2d 786, the Court held that designation of an area as residential which was primarily commercial was invalid and void, and that the refusal to grant a trailer license to the plaintiff at the same time granting a license to others similarly situated was arb…
Authorities Cited
- Drexel v. City of Miami Beach, 64 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1953)
- Hernandez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Anderson, 74 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1954)
- Starr v. Smith, 77 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1955)
- State ex rel. Holland et. al. v. City OF EAU Gallie, 65 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1953)