ESTHER FELDMAN AND LENA K. RAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A MEMBER OF EMMA LAZARUS ORGANIZATION OF MIAMI BEACH, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A FLORIDA 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 involved a dispute over the refusal to allow public meetings in a city park. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, finding the issue moot and not of sufficient public interest to warrant further review.
No, the appellate court, in its discretion, can choose not to decide moot issues if they are not of sufficient general interest or importance to justify further consideration.
“Authorities hold that .although questions raised in litigated cases may become moot before their decision by the appellate court in due course, the court is warranted in deciding them if they are of general interest to the people and of importance in the administration of the law.”
This quote establishes the general rule regarding the court's ability to decide moot issues.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sought to use Flamingo Park for public meetings, including one scheduled for April 17, 1960. The City of Miami Beach, through its Park Supe…
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 Justiciable Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs, appellants herein, sought relief against the defendant, appellee herein, because of alleged refusal of the defendant, through its Park Superintendent, to permit the use of Flamingo Park, by the plaintiffs for public meetings, and more specifically for a meeting on April 17, 1960. The ■complaint was filed on February 26, 1960; answer was filed on April S, 1960; thereafter, on June 24, 1960, upon final hearing the lower court dismissed the cause with prejudice on the ground that no justiciable issue was presented by the pleading.
The attorneys for the respective parties admitted, and stated that the lower court considered, the issue presented by the pleading as moot. Authorities hold that .although questions raised in litigated cases may become moot before their decision by the appellate court in due course, the court is warranted in deciding them if they are of general interest to the people and of importance in the administration of the law. See Clark v. State ex rel. Rubin, Fla.App., 122 So.2d 807, and other cases cited therein.
This court, however, in the exercise of its discretion, treats the questions raised in the appeal as moot, and as raising no question of such general interest to the people or of such importance in the administration of the law as to justify further consideration.
The lower court’s order is, therefore, affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State of Fla. ex rel. Kate Rubin, 122 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)