BETRAM C. ELLISON AND JOLINE M. ELLISON, HIS WIFE, PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND BROWARD COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 denied a petition for conflict certiorari, finding it lacked jurisdiction. The court also noted an error in a lower court's opinion regarding the source of the State Road Department's condemnation power, clarifying it derives from the Declaration of Rights, not Article XVI.
The Florida Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The District Court's reference to Section 29 of Article XVI as the source of the State Road Department's condemnation power was obiter dicta and harmless error.
“It appearing that this court has no jurisdiction under Section 4, Article V of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., the petition for certiorari is denied.”
Establishes the primary reason for denying the petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners sought conflict certiorari to review a decision by the District Court of Appeal. The District Court's opinion referenced Section 29, Artic…
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 Conflict Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a petition for conflict cer-tiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in the case of State Road Department etc. v. Abel Investment Company et al. reported at 165 So.2d 832. Factual background and questions involved are set forth in the reported decision, supra. It appearing that this court has no jurisdiction under Section 4, Article V of the Constitution of Florida, F.S.A., the petition for certiorari is denied. However, by way of caveat we note that the opinion of the District Court refers to Section 29, Article XVI of the Florida Constitution as authority for condemnation proceedings by the State Road Department. At the time of the District Court’s decision in June 1964, that court did not have the benefit of the decision by this court in Daniels v. State Road Department, 170 So.2d 846, filed September 30, 1964, in which it was held that the State Road Department derives its power of condemnation under Section 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution of 1885, F.S.A., and that Section 29 of Article XVI was intended to apply only to private corporations and individuals and not the State, its agencies and political subdivisions. The erroneous reference, however, in the District Court’s opinion to Section 29 of Article XVI as the source of authority was more in the nature of obiter dicta and harmless in the circumstances here present.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and. ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion that the writ be denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. K.E. Morris Alignment Serv., Inc., 444 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1983)…So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Intercoastal Drydock, Inc. v. State Road Department, 203 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 210 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1968); State Road Department v. Abel Investment Co., 165 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 169 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1964); State Road Department v. Peter, 165 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). It is true that none of the above-cited cases dealt with the precise issue that has arisen now. But in reasoning that “[i]f the legislature had intended the requirement t…
-
Jamesson v. Downtown Dev. Auth. OF the City OF Fort Lauderdale, 322 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1975)…court is affirmed. ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS, OVER-TON and DREW (Retired), JJ„ and HENSLEY and MELVIN, Circuit Judges, concur. . Fla.Const. art. X, § 6 (1968). . State Road Dep’t v. Abel Inv. Co., 165 So. 2d 832 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.), cert. denied, 169 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1964). This is the predominant view in the United States. See 4, Nichols, Eminent Domain § 13.3. . Section 73.071(3) (b), Fla.Stat., provides that business damages are allowable when less than an entire property has been condemned, but only if…
-
Glessner v. Duval Cnty., 203 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…severance damages under Sec. 73.10 (2). These two types of damages are distinguishable legally in some respects. See, for instance, State Road Department v. Abel Investment Co., 165 So. 2d 832 (Fla.App.1964), cert. den. Ellison v. State Road Dept., 169 So. 2d 485. The question occurs to us, however, as to the legal consequences if the two kinds of damages are identical, so that the landowner would be enabled to obtain, in effect, double compensation for the same item of damage. While this question has not be…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Daniels v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 170 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1964)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Abel Inv. Co., 165 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)