CITY OF GAINESVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BYRON WINN, ALAN SUTHERLAND, EDWIN TURLINGTON, JAMES G. RICHARDSON AND HOWARD MCKINNEY, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, T. G. HENLEY, AS BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, AND W. T. GREEN, JR., AS CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, PETITIONERS,
v.
WILBUR BISHOP, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT, AND AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 because it found no jurisdictional conflict between the District Court of Appeal's decision and prior Supreme Court rulings, meaning the case did not meet the criteria for review by the higher court.
No, the Florida Supreme Court found no jurisdictional conflict between the District Court of Appeal's decision and its own prior decisions.
“On further careful consideration of the record and briefs, we have concluded that no jurisdictional conflict of decisions is present.”
This quote establishes the Court's ultimate finding that the criteria for certiorari review were not met.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Gainesville and its officials petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a decision by the District Court of Appeal. The initial review…
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 Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District. City of Gainesville et al. v. Bishop et al., 174 So.2d 100.
Our initial consideration of the matter suggested a prima facie jurisdictional conflict between the decision under review and prior decisions of this Court on the same point of law. We have heard arguments on both jurisdiction and merits. On further careful consideration of the record and briefs, we have concluded that no jurisdictional conflict of decisions is present. We, therefore, find that the writ was improvidently issued and it is hereby discharged.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, J., dissents with opinion.
ERVIN, J., dissents and agrees with ROBERTS, J.
(dissenting).
In my opinion the court does have jurisdiction. The basic defense was one of es-toppel and the decision of the trial court, in disposing of the case by summary judgment without a trial of issues, was error. “One who invokes the doctrine of estoppel must show that he has been misled by the conduct of the other party.” Singletary v. Mann, 157 Fla. 37, 24 So.2d 718, 166 A.L.R. 904. Investment in the property was made with red flags flying all around, and I fail to find any evidence or indication that the investors were misled or deceived. I would quash the decision here under review with directions that it reverse the summary judgment entered by the trial court and allow the cause to proceed to a trial of the issues involved. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
ROBERTS, Justice
(dissenting).
In my opinion the court does have jurisdiction. The basic defense was one of estoppel and the decision of the trial court, in disposing of the case by summary judgment without a trial of issues, was error. “One who invokes the doctrine of estoppel must show that he has been misled by the conduct of the other party.” Singletary v. Mann, 157 Fla. 37, 24 So. 2d 718, 166 A.L.R. 904. Investment in the property was made with red flags flying all around, and I fail to find any evidence or indication that the investors were misled or deceived. I would quash the decision here under review with directions that it reverse the summary judgment entered by the trial court and allow the cause to proceed to a trial of the issues involved. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Equity Res., Inc. v. Cnty. OF Leon, 643 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…o establish that it would be grossly unfair to allow the county to deny Pelham and Equity Resources a vested right at the eleventh hour of their development of Phase II. City of Gainesville v. Bishop, 174 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. discharged, 181 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1965); Hough v. Amato. The doctrine of equitable estoppel is based fundamentally on “ ‘rules of fair play.’ ” Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corp., 309 So. 2d 571, 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). As the court in that case explained: “Stripped of the…
-
Willumsen v. Horton, 307 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…aples v. Crans, Fla.App.2d 1974, 292 So. 2d 58; City of North Miami v. Margulies, Fla.App.3d 1974, 289 So. 2d 424; Hough v. Amato, Fla.App. 1st 1968, 212 So. 2d 662; City of Gainesville v. Bishop, Fla.App. 1st 1965, 174 So. 2d 100, cert. discharged, 181 So. 2d 163. Count II of the amended complaint falls short of the allegations necessary to support a claim of estoppel, there being no allegation that appellees ever sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the District, that the District was unwilling to respond…
-
L. H. (Buddy) Hough v. Amato, 212 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…), and Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So. 2d 433 (1963). The City of Gainesville filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of Florida to review our decision in the Bishop case, as reported in City of Gainesville v. Bishop, 181 So. 2d 163 (1965), which court discharged the writ on the ground that no jurisdictional conflict of decisions existed. On the authority of our decision in the Bishop case, supra, and the above-cited decisions of the Florida Supreme Court, we hold that the Cit…
Authorities Cited
- Singletary v. Mann, 157 Fla. 37 (Fla. 1946)
- City OF Gainesville v. Bishop, 174 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)