STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL JACK SCHWARTZ AND ALBERT LOWENSTEIN, A PARTNERSHIP D/B/A PADDOCK BAR, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF HIALEAH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, HENRY MILANDER, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF HIALEAH, J. M. CHERRY, C. A. WHITEACRE, V. J. ASHLEY, F. A. BENEDETTO, W. H. LOCKWARD, M. E. THOMPSON AND L. B. WHITWORTH, JR., AS COUNCILMEN OF THE CITY OF HIALEAH, AND JAMES H. GOODLET, AS CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HIALEAH, APPELLEES
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.
Paddock Bar sought a mandamus writ to compel the City of Hialeah to issue an alcoholic beverage license despite a municipal ordinance prohibiting such licenses within 1,500 feet of churches. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that no clear legal duty exists to issue the license and that the city ordinance expressly forbade it.
The court held that no clear legal duty exists requiring the municipality to issue the license, and that the city ordinance affirmatively prohibited issuance. The court also held that estoppel does not apply to transactions prohibited by municipal ordinance, consistent with the principle that estoppel cannot apply to transactions forbidden by statute or contrary to public policy.
“No clear legal duty appears on the municipality requiring it to issue a beverage license to the relator but, to the contrary, the record affirmatively discloses that the City would be in violation of its own ordinances prohibiting the issuance of an alcoholic beverage license within 1,500 feet of a church.”
Establishes the core holding that the municipality had no duty to issue the license and would violate its ordinance by doing so.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Paddock Bar, a partnership, sought to obtain an alcoholic beverage license in Hialeah. The proposed location was within 1,500 feet of an exi…
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 Mandamus Proceeding cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant instituted mandamus proceedings in the trial court to require the municipal appellee, through its appropriate officials, to issue to it an alcoholic beverage license within 1,500 feet of existing churches. The trial judge refused to issue either the alternative or the peremptory writ, and dismissed the cause. We affirm.
*676No clear legal duty appears on the municipality requiring it to issue a beverage license to the relator but, to the contrary, the record affirmatively discloses that the City would be in violation of its own ordinances prohibiting the issuance of an alcoholic beverage license within 1,500 feet of a church.1 In this connection, see: Banyan Cafeterias, Inc., No. 3 v. Faith Lutheran Church of Hialeah, Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 5; Banyan Cafeterias, Inc., No. 3 v. Faith Lutheran Church of Hialeah, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 426.
Counsel for the appellant has also urged the doctrine of estoppel as being applicable in the instant case, even though it is conceded that to issue the license in question would violate the ordinances of the municipality. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that the doctrine of es-toppel is not applicable in transactions which are forbidden by statute or which are contrary to public policy. See: Montsdoca v. Highlands Bank & Trust Co., 85 Fla. 158, 95 So. 666. If the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable to transactions which are forbidden by statute, it should not be applicable to transactions or matters which are prohibited by municipal ordinances. This rule, applicable to prohibitory ordinances, would not necessarily be applicable to ordinances wherein the officials of a municipality had discretion in exercising their authority.
Therefore, for the reasons herein expressed, the action of the trial judge in denying the relief sought is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Spencer, 397 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…transactions that are forbidden by statute or are contrary to the public policy. Sherba Bros., Inc. v. Campbell, 361 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Confederation Life Association v. Conte, 254 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. City of Hialeah, 156 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Montsdoca v. Highlands Bank and Trust Co., 95 So. 666 (Fla.1923). Moreover, an omission sufficient to imply the doctrine of equitable estoppel means negligent or culpable omission in instances where the party failing to act is un…
-
Roberto C. Fraga, M.D. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 464 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…Bengis Associates, Inc., 257 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 261 So. 2d 839 (Fla.1972); City of Miami Beach v. Meiselman, 216 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1969); State ex rel. Schwartz v. City of Hialeah, 156 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Courts have consistently refused to apply estoppel against the state on the basis of unauthorized or mistaken acts or representations of state officers. See, e.g., Austin v. Austin, 350 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denie…1 / 2
-
Salz v. Dep't of Admin., 432 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…nty v. Bengis Associates, 257 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 261 So. 2d 839 (Fla.1972); City of Miami Beach v. Meiselman, 216 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1969); State ex rel. Schwartz v. City of Hialeah, 156 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Estoppel is established by proving “1) a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; 2) reliance on that representation; and 3) a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estop…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Montsdoca v. The Highlands Bank & Tr. Co., 85 Fla. 158 (Fla. 1923)
- Banyan Cafeterias, Inc. v. The Faith Lutheran Church OF Hialeah, 141 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Banyan Cafeterias, Inc. v. The Faith Lutheran Church OF Hialeah, 151 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1963)