MARY C. GRAHAM ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
HUBERT S. TALTON 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 District Court of Appeal, First District, dismissed a petition for certiorari seeking review of a zoning board's decision to rezone land. The court held that the zoning board's action was legislative in nature, not quasi-judicial, and therefore not subject to review by certiorari.
No, a zoning board's legislative action, such as rezoning land, is not subject to review by a petition for writ of certiorari. Such actions must be challenged through a direct attack in the circuit court.
“From a review of the record, it affirmatively appears that the action of the Zoning Commission here assaulted was legislative in character, and emanated from a hearing which bore none of the characteristics of a quasi-judicial proceeding.”
Establishes the court's characterization of the zoning board's action.
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 review by certiorari of a resolution by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Volusia County, which affirmed an order by the District One …
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 Legislative Action cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioners seek review by certiorari of a resolution adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Volusia County affirming an order rendered by the District One Zoning Commission of Volusia County. The order in question rezoned a parcel of land from an “R-1A” classification, single family dwelling district, to an “R-2” classification, multiple family dwelling district. Petitioners contend that the action of the Zoning Commission is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and should be quashed.
From a review of the record, it affirmatively appears that the action of the Zoning Commission here assaulted was legislative in character, and emanated from a hearing which bore none of the characteristics of a quasi-judicial proceeding. Under these circumstances certiorari is not the proper method of reviewing the order with which petitioners are concerned. The validity of such an order may be questioned only by an appropriate action brought in the circuit court in which the order is made the subject of a direct attack. For this reason we do not reach the merits of the case and have no alternative but to dismiss the petition. Certiorari is denied and the petition dismissed. See Civil Service Board of City of Miami v. Fonner, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 595; Ellison v. City of Fort Lauder*325dale, Fla.1965, 175 So.2d 198; Thompson v. City of Miami, Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 841; Harris v. Goff, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 642.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and SACK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rinker Materials Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 528 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ance. As such, Rinker was entitled to present evidence to prove its contention that the ordinance was unreasonable and arbitrary. See Coral Gables Federal Savs. & Loan v. City of Lighthouse Point, 444 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Graham v. Talton, 192 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); compare Graham, (writ of certiorari improper method of challenging re-zoning ordinance on the basis that it was unreasonable; proper method is a direct challenge in circuit court) with Albright v. Hensley, 492 So. 2d 852, 856 (F…
Authorities Cited
- Harris v. H.A. Goff, 151 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Thompson v. City OF Miami, 167 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1964)
- Bertram C. Ellison v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 175 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1965)
- Civil Serv. Bd. OF the City OF Miami v. Fonner, 181 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)