WILLIAM H. STUBBLEFIELD AND ELSIE W. STUBBLEFIELD, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1962-02-08
No. 61-399
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
137 So. 2d 607 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1962) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, from a judgment in condemnation, was taken by owners to whom a jury awarded $675 for the taking of a ten foot strip for street widening. The portion taken was a walkway, and the area between the walk and the street which would be added to the street. The walk would remain, as a public walk. We have examined *608the record and given consideration to the several questions briefed and urged by appellants as a basis for reversal, and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Dade Cnty. v. Bar-Zac, Inc., 35 Fla. Supp. 122 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1971)
    …ch any restrictions arising from the ordinance may be applied or considered. The petitioner has cited to the court Mayer v. Dade County, 82 So. 2d 513 (1965); Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603, 47 Sup. Ct. 675, 71 L.Ed. 1228; Stubblefield v. Dade County, 137 So. 2d 607 (3d Dist. Fla. 1962); and Swift & Co. v. Housing Authority of Plant City, 106 So. 2d 616 (2d Dist. Fla. 1968). These cases are not controlling of the issue before this court. Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that full compensation for the ta…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw