CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HORACE THOMPSON, APPELLEE
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 City of Miami challenged a trial court's decision granting Horace Thompson relief from zoning restrictions that prohibited filling stations within 1,050 feet of churches. The Florida Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration of assignments of error not previously addressed, and this court reversed the trial court's decision, finding the zoning distance requirements valid and constitutional.
The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded with directions to enter a decree in favor of the City of Miami, finding that the zoning distance requirements between filling stations and churches are valid and enforceable.
“whether the evidence offered by appellee was legally sufficient to sustain a finding of "unnecessary hardship" when measured by the standard and requirements contained in Article XXXI, Section 1, of the Zoning Code of the City of Miami”
States the core legal issue on remand regarding whether Thompson presented sufficient evidence for unnecessary hardship under the zoning code
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThompson sought relief from the City of Miami's zoning ordinance restricting filling stations to a distance of at least 1,050 feet from churches. The …
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 Arbitrary And Capricious Zoning cases and more on FLexlaw
The Supreme Court of Florida in an opinion dated September 9, 1964, 167 So.2d 841, quashed the opinion and judgment of this court dated January 21, 1964, 159 So. 2d 877, and remanded the cause to this court for "appropriate decision on the other assignments of error presented * * * but not passed upon * *
On this appeal, the appellant’s “other assignments of error presented * * * but not passed upon” are assignments numbers 3, 4 and 5, raising for consideration by this court the question of whether the evidence offered by appellee was legally sufficient to sustain a finding of "unnecessary hardship” when measured by the standard and requirements contained in Article XXXI, Section 1, of the Zoning Code of the City of Miami.1 The appellee contends that he is not seeking a variance from the distance requirements but an “adjudication that the 1,050 foot restrictions between ap-pellee-plaintiff’s property as a filling station and a church approximately 1,000 feet away * * * was void, arbitrary, unconstitutional and had no relationship to * * * public health, safety and welfare.” Whether we accept either of the contending parties’ views as- the controlling question to be decided, the result will be the same.
The same provisions of this same ordinance governing the distances between filling station and another and between filling stations and churches, schools and hospitals have been the subject of a recent opinion by this court, The City of Miami v. Walker, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 842 [opinion filed December 15, 1964], Upon the authority of the foregoing opinion and judgment, together with the authorities therein relied upon, the final decree in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter a decree in favor of the appellant.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. City OF Miami, 205 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…as Investment Co. v. Peace, 139 Fla. 394, 190 So. 607, followed by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, in City of Miami v. Stegemann, Fla.App.1964, 158 So. 2d 583, and most recently in the cases styled City of Miami v. Thompson, 169 So. 2d 838, and City of Miami v. Walker, 169 So. 2d 842. “The Court has considered the fact that the City has permitted numerous filling stations within the distance prohibitions of the ordinance and has granted numerous variances from this requirement. This,…
-
Thompson v. City of Miami, 176 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1965)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 169 So. 2d 838.…
-
Acosta v. City OF Miami, 202 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of City of Miami v. Thompson, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 838; City of Miami v. Walker, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 842.…
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. City OF Miami, 167 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1964)
- The City OF Miami v. Walker, 169 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- City OF Miami v. Thompson, 159 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)