STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND ORANGE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONERS,
v.
BERTHA WHITE ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court discharged a writ of certiorari, holding that a lessee for a term of years is considered an "owner" entitled to recover business damages in a condemnation proceeding under state statute. This decision resolved a conflict with another appellate court ruling.
Yes, a lessee for a term of years is considered an "owner" for the purpose of the statute and is entitled to recover business damages in a condemnation proceeding.
“We have concluded the District Court of Appeal properly held in this cause that a lessee for a term of years is, for the purpose of the statute, an owner and, as such, is entitled to recover business damages under the provisions thereof, any holding of Gross, supra, to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This quote establishes the court's holding regarding the lessee's status as an owner and their entitlement to business damages.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a condemnation proceeding where the State Road Department and Orange County sought to acquire property. The respondents, lessees of …
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.
This cause is here on Petition for Writ of Certiorari alleging conflict between the decision herein1 and that of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Gross v. Ruskin.2 The reported opinion in the Gross case does not disclose the facts but the statement that (in condemnation) damages for loss of business “are not recoverable by a lessee” is at odds with the language of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in the opinion herein. We refer to the latter opinion for the essential facts, circumstances and relative citations.
We have concluded the District Court of Appeal properly held in this cause that a lessee for a term of years is, for the purpose of the statute,3 an owner and, as such, is entitled to recover business damages under the provisions thereof, any holding of Gross, supra, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Respondent questions whether a terminal; Sunday can be excluded in computing the time for filing notice of appeal under F.S. §'; 73.14, F.S.A. The point has been settled adversely to Respondent’s contention by the-recent opinion of this Court in Dade County Planning Department vs. Ransing, 158: So.2d 528.
The Writ of Certiorari is discharged.
ROBERTS, Acting C. J., HOBSON (Ret.), J., and WALKER, Circuit Judge,, concur.
THORNAL, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc., 275 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1973)…rest in such property and may be assessed and taxed as real estate to the lessee, Tampa Airport Motel, Inc., which is using such property for a predominantly private purpose.” See, S.R.D. v. White, 148 So. 2d 32 (Fla.App.2d 1962), cert. discharged, 161 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1964).…
-
Sys. Components Corp. v. Fla. Dep't OF Transp., 14 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 2009)…een interpreted to include the business damage claim of a lessee, and not merely that of a fee owner." Blockbuster Video, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Transp., 714 So. 2d 1222, 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (emphasis supplied) (citing State Road Dep’t v. White, 161 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1964), approving, 148 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)). . The owner must have conducted business on the condemned land and the adjoining, remaining land. See, e.g., Gateway Growers, [*978] Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach County, 924 So. 2d 875, 87…
-
Carter v. State Rd. Dep't, 189 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1966)…trial court in support of its order are: Rich v. Harper Neon Co., 124 So. 2d 750 (Fla.App.2d 1960) and Parker v. Armstrong, 125 So. 2d 138 (Fla.App.2d 1960), cert. denied without opinion 133 So. 2d 321 (Fla.1961). . State Road Department v. White, 161 So. 2d 828 (Fla.1964). . “Section 3. Trial by jury inviolate.— The right of trial by jury shall bee (sic) secured to all, and remain inviolate forever.” . “Section 12. Double jeopardy; self-incrimination; eminent domain; right to work.—No person shall be sub…
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
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. White, 148 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Gross v. Ruskin, 133 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)