THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OF TORONTO, CANADA, A CANADIAN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

MIGUEL ANTONIO CERVERA FALLA DE FALLA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Irvine v. Duval Cnty. Planning Comm'n & the City Of Jacksonville, 466 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
  …inance granting the power to make zoning exceptions must contain proper standards or rules of guidance in order to be valid. City of St. Petersburg v. Schweitzer, 297 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Mayflower Property, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 137 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Section 163.170(6) of the statutes incorporates this rule by providing that uses may be permitted as special exceptions "only if specific provisions and standards for such special exceptions are made in the zoning ordinance.” The…
• Bd. OF Adjustment OF City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Kremer, 139 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
  …ge in the ordinance rather than a variance.” On the question of whether the relief sought by the appellant is a variance or an exception we refer to the opinion of our own court in Mayflower Property, Inc., v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 849, wherein Ch. 57-1322, Laws of Florida was likewise under consideration. Judge Smith, for the court, said: “A ‘variance’ is the relief granted from the literal enforcement of a zoning ordinance permitting the use of property in a manner otherwise fo…
• Welcom Watson v. Mayflower Prop., Inc., 177 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
  …e public health, public morals, safety, and general welfare, which is multiple use, including hotels, motels, and apartments.” This cause has been before this court previously in Mayflower Property, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.2, 1962, 137 So. 2d 849. While that suit was primarily for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiff was required to pursue administrative remedies before resorting to the courts where such administrative [*357] remedies would be of no avail, the opinion contains a…

Authorities Cited

• Confederation OF Canada Life Ins. Co. v. Arminan, 135 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)