WILLIAM B. COURSEN AND FREDDIE EDGAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF SOUTH DAYTONA, 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.
This case involves a challenge to a city's annexation ordinance. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot because the ordinance was enacted after the lawsuit was filed and the injunction was sought, rendering the requested relief ineffective.
Yes, the appeal is moot because the annexation has already occurred, rendering the requested injunctive relief ineffective.
“Finding as we do that the issue presented by this appeal is moot and that no efficient purpose can be served by further action herein, of our own motion an order will be entered dismissing this appeal without prejudice to the right of appellants to take such other action for relief as they may be advised.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for dismissing the appeal due to mootness.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued to enjoin the City of South Daytona from annexing territory, alleging the city failed to comply with statutory requirements. They obta…
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 Statutory Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
On October 5, 1959, the appellants herein, plaintiffs below sued to enjoin the appellee from enacting an allegedly pending ordinance or resolution designed to annex certain territory to the appellee pursuant to Chapter 59-1885, Laws of Florida. The right to injunctive relief was based on the alleged failure of the defendant city to comply with the provisions of the statute. On the same day appellants procured a temporary injunction in the premises. On March 9, 1960, on motion of appellee, the temporary injunction was vacated and the suit dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
Appellee moved to dismiss this appeal, alleging the above facts and further alleging (a) that the order of dismissal had not been superseded, and (b) that on March 14, 1960, appellee adopted an ordinance annexing the territory involved. On that showing appellee insisted that the question involved on the appeal was moot because the action sought to be enjoined had already taken place. At that time the record on appeal and the briefs had not been filed, and the motion was denied. Subsequently the appeal was perfected and on oral argument it was agreed that the facts stated in the motion to dismiss were correct.
Finding as we do that the issue presented by this appeal is moot and that no efficient purpose can be served by further action herein, of our own motion an order will be entered dismissing this appeal without prejudice to the right of appellants to take such other action for relief as they may be advised.
Appeal dismissed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and STURGIS and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friends OF THE Everglades, Inc. v. S. Fla. Reg'l Planning Council & City Nat'l Bank of Miami, 447 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…Life Insurance Company v. Newell’s Incorporated, 226 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); In re Estate of Lindsay, 207 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Gill v. City of North Miami Beach, 156 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Coursen v. City of South Daytona, 127 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961); Bliven v. Turville, 100 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Appeal dismissed.…
-
Gill v. City OF N. Miami Beach, 156 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…the right of the appellant to pursue such other action for relief as he may be .advised. Appeal dismissed. . See: Tyler v. Peacock, 98 Fla. 981, 124 So. 463; Barrs v. Peacock, 65 Fla. 12, 61 So. 118; Coursen v. City of South Daytona, Fla.App.1961, 127 So. 2d 905.…
-
Endruschat v. Am. Title Ins. Co., 377 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…e family restrictions. Our examination of the purchase agreement is not conclusive on this subject. However, this issue was not argued at the trial level nor on appeal. We therefore ignore it. . Also see Mazel v. American Title & Insurance Company, 127 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) cert. den. Fla., 133 So. 2d 326. . The Title Company refused to participate in or institute such a suit. . See footnote 2.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence