WILLIAM BLAIR JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
VILLAGE OF VIRGINIA GARDENS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 appellate court affirmed a summary final decree for the defendant village, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a license for on-premises liquor consumption despite operating a pre-existing nonconforming package store. The court found a valid ordinance prohibited such licenses within 1,500 feet of a church or public school, making the requested license unlawful.
No, the business is not entitled to the license because the issuance of such a license would be rendered unlawful by a valid ordinance forbidding the location of such businesses within 1,500 feet of a church and public school.
“However, it affirmatively appears from the record that the issuance of a license for sale of liquor to be consumed upon the premises would be rendered unlawful by valid ordinance forbidding the location of such business within 1,500 feet of a church, and public school.”
This quote explains the core reasoning for denying the license, highlighting the conflict with a valid zoning ordinance.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant operated a package store, a pre-existing nonconforming use under the village's zoning ordinances for off-premises liquor sales. He sough…
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 Nonconforming Use cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed his complaint for a declaratory decree seeking an adjudication that he was entitled to a license for the sale of intoxicating beverages to be consumed upon the premises where he was already operating a package store. The trial judge entered a summary final decree for the defendant. It appeared from the pleadings and depositions on file, together with the affidavits, that the plaintiff’s place of business was a previously existing nonconforming use, insofar as it was effected by the zoning ordinances of the town for the sale of liquor upon the premises for consumption off the premises. However, it affirmatively appears from the record that the issuance of a license for sale of liquor to be consumed upon the premises would be rendered unlawful by valid ordinance forbidding the location of such business within 1,500 feet of a church, and public school. The summary judgment was properly entered. Cf. Harlem, Jr., Inc., v. Mount Sinai Baptist Church, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 437.
Affirmed.
HORTON, Acting Chief Judge, PEARSON, J., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Am. Crafts, Inc., 129 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…t and reversed in part, and remanded with directions. HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur. . This is the second appearance of this cause. See Williams v. Ahrenholz, Fla.App.1959, 108 So. 2d 304. . See Spector v. Ahrenholz, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 34; Ahrenholz v. Green, Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 139. . As pointed out in our opinion upon the first appearance of this case, Williams v. Ahrenholz, supra, note [1], the thrust of the complaint as directed to the defendants, L. T. Ahrenholz, Michael F…
-
Hill v. Lummus, 123 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…created. In such circumstance he becomes a victim of his own fraudulent devices and cannot enter a chancery court with clean hands, * * * Tenny v. Hilton Corporation, 140 Fla. 521, 192 So. 180, * * * ” See also Spector v. Ahrenholz, Fla.App. 1958, 107 So. 2d 34; Kahn v. Wilkins, 36 Fla. 428, 18 So. 584; 15 Fla.Jur., Fraudulent Conveyances, § 40. Since the actions of the decedent worked an estoppel against the administrator, he would not be in a position now to urge the invalidity of a deed from his decede…
-
Schetter v. Schetter, 279 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…In Maxwell v. Sullivan, 1936, 123 Fla. 263, 166 So. 575 and Hill v. Lummus, Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 365, the facts indicated that the grantee in favor of whom the estoppel worked was an innocent third party. In Spector v. Ahrenholz, Fla.App. 1958, 107 So. 2d 34, the third case cited by the trial court, the District Court applied the rule, with the result that a grantor was not permitted to show that a deed which he had previously executed was intended as a security device rather than a deed absolute. The o…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harlem, Jr., Inc. v. Mount Sinai Baptist Church, 100 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Vecsey v. Vecsey, 100 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)