ABE ALIANELL, APPELLANT,
v.
RALPH A. FOSSEY, FARIS N. COWART, CHARLES F. HALL, EDWIN L. MASON AND JOHN B. MCLEOD AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Appellant Alianell sought to enjoin individual county commissioners from enforcing a zoning resolution, naming them as defendants. The court held that county commissioners must be sued in the county's name, not individually, and that zoning disputes are reviewed by certiorari or statutory appeal rather than injunction, but remanded to allow appellant to pursue an appropriate remedy.
County commissioners must be sued in the name of the county, not individually. Actions of administrative boards including zoning decisions are reviewed by certiorari or statutory appeal de novo, not by injunction. The dismissal was proper as to form and proper defendants, but should have been without prejudice to allow appellant to pursue an appropriate remedy.
“The actions of administrative hoards are reviewed ordinarily by certiorari.”
Establishes that zoning board decisions are reviewed by certiorari, not by direct injunction suits against individual commissioners.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Alianell was aggrieved by a zoning resolution passed by the Dade County Commission and alleged that the county planning, zoning and building…
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 Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order dismissing an action for injunction brought against named individuals as County Commissioners of Dade County. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff, appellant herein, was .aggrieved by the passage of a certain *373resolution in a zoning- matter, and that the county planning, zoning and building department was about to take action against him pursuant to this legislative action of the county commission. The plaintiff further stated in his complaint that: “ [H] e enters his appeal de novo to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, from that certain resolution * *
The appellant admits that county commissioners are required to he sued in the name of the county,1 but urges that the statute applies only to those actions brought against counties upon a county obligation and is not applicable because he has no quarrel with Dade County as a governmental agency. It is urged that the action of the commissioners was that of a board in passing on the merits of a mixed question of law and fact and that an appeal to the circuit court should be allowed upon the theory that there is a right of appeal from an order of any administrative body.
The actions of administrative hoards are reviewed ordinarily by certio-rari. Rule 4.1, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.; Codomo v. Shaw, Fla.1958, 99 So.2d 849. Section 176.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides a method of appeal de novo from the decision of a zoning board of adjustment within 30 days after the filing of the decision in the office of the hoard. Josephson v. Autrey, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 784. Zoning is a legislative function, and the courts will interfere only when zoning ordinances conflict with constitutional safeguards or if in their application in individual cases they are unreasonable or arbitrary. Town of Surfside v. Abelson, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 108.
The action was not in appropriate form and the individuals making up the county commission were not proper defendants.2 Nevertheless, the order of dismissal should have been without prejudice to the appellant’s right to question the validity of the ordinance in an appropriate proceeding. Therefore the cause is remanded for the entry of an amended order of dismissal in accord with this opinion.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, J., and DREW, E. HARRIS, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. H.A. Goff, 151 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…Ch. 25510, Laws of Florida, 1949. . DeGrott v. Sheffield et al., (Fla.1957) 95 So. 2d 912. . Bloomfield v. Mayo, (Fla.App.1960) 119 So. 2d 417. . Josephson v. Autry, et al., (Fla.1957) 96 So. 2d 784. . Alianell v. Fossey, et al., (Fla.App.1959) 114 So. 2d 372; Schauer et al. v. City of Miami Beach, et al. (Fla.1959) 112 So. 2d S38, 71 A.L.R.2d 562; Josephson v. Autry, et al., see footnote 4. . Friedland, et al. v. City of Hollywood et al., (Fla.App.1961) 130 So. 2d 306; Schauer et al. v. City of Miami B…
-
Zabel v. Pinellas Cnty. Water & Navigation Control Auth., 171 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1965)…ons as are urged by Appellants have been sustained in zoning regulation cases. See 35 Fla.Jur., pp. 725 to 729, inch, and Miami v. Hollis, 77 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1955); State ex rel. Helseth v. DuBose, 99 Fla. 812, 128 So. 4 (1930) ; Alianell v. Fossey, 114 So. 2d 372 (Fla.App. 1959) ; Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So. 2d 132 (Fla.1958). I think the evidence demonstrated with great strength the 11.5 acre fill would produce material adverse effect upon the public within the contemplation of the governing statutes. More…
-
McKIM v. McNAYR, 168 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…rity of the Metropolitan Code] 3 adhered to his original order of [*80] dismissal of the appellant and dismissed him from County service. Thereafter, certiorari was prosecuted to the circuit court in accordance with Alianell v. Fossey, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 372; O’Brien v. Campbell, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 672; Rule 4.1, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., and this resulted in the order here under review wherein the circuit judge quashed and dismissed the writ of certio-rari, reciting the following in sai…
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
- Codomo v. Shaw, 99 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1958)
- Norton Josephson v. Autrey, 96 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1957)
- Warriner v. Maxine Hotel Corp., 96 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1957)
- Town OF Surfside v. Abelson, 106 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)