CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
R & G INCORPORATED, A FLORIDA 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 Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a lower court's decision granting a permanent injunction against the City of Miami Beach. The injunction prevented the city from interfering with a hotel's valet service that also provided dry cleaning to individuals outside the hotel.
No, the zoning ordinance was not broad enough to prohibit a valet service from furnishing services beyond the limits of the hotel in which the equipment is located.
“Since the zoning ordinance — No. 289 — is not broad enough to encompass the prohibition against furnishing valet services beyond the limits of the hotel in which the equipment is located, we conclude that the appellant's remedy is through appropriate legislation if it feels that the situation complained of should be remedied.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for finding the zoning ordinance insufficient to prohibit the valet service's operations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR & G Incorporated operated a valet and dry cleaning service within the Crown Hotel. The City of Miami Beach sought to enjoin this service, arguing th…
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 Ordinance Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee sought an injunction against the City of Miami Beach to enjoin interference with its valet service operated by it in the Crown Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. The chancellor granted a temporary injunction and, on final hearing, made the injunction permanent.
The appellant contends that a valet service operated with equipment installed in a structure zoned for hotels violates the zoning ordinance by performing dry cleaning services for persons outside the hotel in which the equipment is located. No authorities have been cited for this posi*755tion by the appellant, and the ordinance itself does not appear to he broad enough to encompass the position which the appellant seems to take on appeal. Since the zoning ordinance — No. 289 — is not broad enough to encompass the prohibition against furnishing valet services beyond the limits of the hotel in which the equipment is located, we conclude that the appellant’s remedy is through appropriate legislation if it feels that the situation complained of should be remedied.
Finding as we do that no reversible error has been demonstrated, the decree appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bertram C. Ellison v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 166 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…Sweat v. Daley, 1934, 116 Fla. 755, 756, 156 So. 720; Blitch v. City of Ocala, 1940, 142 Fla. 612, 195 So. 406; City of Miami Beach v. The Texas Co., 1940, 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368, 128 A.L.R. 350; City of Miami Beach v. R. & G. Inc., Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 754. In concluding that the complaint, among other things, does not sufficiently indicate that the rights of the parties cannot be adequately adjudicated at law through proceedings at the trial and lower appellate levels, we necessarily affirm the orde…