SUNSET REALTY CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DAWSON MCDANIEL, TAX COLLECTOR OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HARRY SCHOOLEY, TAX ASSESSOR OF LEE CONUNTY, FLORIDA, GEORGE S. HUNTER, HERMAN J. HASTINGS, MACK H. JONES, J. FRED HUBER, JULIAN L. HUDSON, AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND RAY E. GREEN, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Sunset Realty Corp. sought injunctive relief to prevent tax collection and set aside allegedly excessive tax assessments on its Lee County lands for 1961. The trial court denied the injunction after finding the property was not assessed in excess of full cash value, and the appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the trial court's judgment.
The trial court correctly denied the injunction because the plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof in establishing that the property was assessed in excess of full cash value. Substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings and application of law.
“The decree of the trial court is generally presumed to be correct on appeal. This court is not authorized to interfere with the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support the judgment.”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to appellate examination of trial court judgments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSunset Realty Corp. owned lands in Lee County, Florida that were assessed for taxes in 1961. The company alleged the assessments exceeded the full cas…
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 Unlawful Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff, appellant here, by its complaint, sought injunctive relief to restrain the defendants, appellees here, from collecting taxes assessed against certain of its lands in Lee County for the year of 1961 and to set aside so much of the tax assessments for that year as exceeded alleged full cash value.
*783After the evidence had been adduced, and before adjudication, plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to conform to the evidence. The court, after argument, denied the motion 1 and entered a final decree dismissing the complaint upon findings that plaintiff’s lands were not assessed in excess of the full cash value and that the equities were with the defendants and against the plaintiff.
The Court, in effect, found that plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proof laid upon it of establishing that the property was assessed in excess of full cash value; thus it was not entitled to injunctive relief because of alleged unlawful discrimination.
The decree of the trial court is generally presumed to be correct on appeal. This court is not authorized to interfere with the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support the judgment.
It is unnecessary to recite or summarize the evidence contained in the record. Appellant admits that none of the facts in this case is in dispute. Our review does not disclose that the learned chancellor misapprehended the legal effect of the evidence or that he applied incorrect principles of law to the facts. There was competent, substantial evidence to support his conclusions. Therefore, the decree will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goldstein v. Pettinger, 183 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…s points for review. However, the thrust of each is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the chancellor’s findings. This final decree arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Sunset Realty Corp. v. McDaniel, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 782; Williams v. Guyton, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 7. If there is any competent evidence or a reasonable inference therefrom, which will support the chancellor’s findings, he should be affirmed. See: Bertman v. Solomon, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 499; Seif…
-
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Pinkerton-Hays Lumber Co., Inc., 186 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…hich readily lent itself to the installation and removal of heavy equipment, without damage to the premises.” ij? ‡ ^ <4* The final decree arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Sunset Realty Corp. v. McDaniel, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 782; Williams v. Guyton, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 7; Goldstein v. Pettinger, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 740. If there is substantial, competent evidence to support the chancellor’s finding, it should be affirmed. See: Bertman v. Solomon, Fla.App.1964, 166…
-
D.M. v. M.D., 247 So. 3d 713 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…er considering all the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, the trial court concluded that M.D. had not abandoned his children. The trial court's order comes to this Court with a presumption of correctness. Sunset Realty Corp. v. McDaniel, 165 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). When, as here, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion, it will be affirmed. See Bertman v. Solomon, 166 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). We cannot reweigh the evidence. Disston v.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sunset Realty Corp. v. Schooley, 165 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)