METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
E. B. ELLIOTT ADVERTISING CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Metropolitan Dade County appealed a trial court decision striking down Ordinance No. 63-26 as unconstitutional. The appellate court reversed, holding that the ordinance was valid under stare decisis, res judicata, and estoppel principles, and directed the trial court to find the defendant liable for operating an unpermitted billboard sign.
The court held that the trial court erred in finding the ordinance unconstitutional. Under stare decisis, the prior Boozer decision upholding the ordinance controlled the trial court proceedings. Additionally, the company was barred by res judicata and estoppel from challenging the ordinance after participating in the prior litigation and accepting benefits under the permit scheme.
“This ruling, under the doctrine of stare decisis, should have controlled the instant action in the trial court.”
Establishes that the trial court was bound by the prior Boozer decision upholding the ordinance's constitutionality.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE.B. Elliott Advertising Co. applied for a class 'C' advertising permit to operate a billboard within 200 feet of an expressway, which was denied. 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 Constitutional Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Subsequent to our opinion in State ex rel. Boozer v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 449, the appellee applied for a class “C” advertising permit to operate an outdoor display sign (or billboard) within 200 feet of an expressway. This application was denied. Thereafter, the appellee requested a class “B” permit for a point of sale sign, which was granted. Thereafter, notwithstanding a permit to operate only a class “B” sign, the appellee erected a class “C” sign contrary to its permit and contrary to the provisions of Ordinance No. 63-26, Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The County thereafter charged the appel-lee with a violation of said ordinance. Appellee then instituted an action in the trial court, contending that the ordinance in question was unconstitutional and the trial court agreed, notwithstanding our prior opinion in State ex rel. Boozer v. City of Miami, supra, when the ordinance was specifically approved and held to be valid.
The ordinance has not been changed. This ruling, under the doctrine of stare decisis, should have controlled the instant action in the trial court. In re Seaton’s Estate, 154 Fla. 446, 18 So.2d 20; Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, Inc., Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 180; Rott v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 168; 8 Fla.Jur., Courts, § 148. In addition, the appellee in the instant case [because of its participation in the prior cause] is barred from seeking an attack on this ordinance by the doctrine of res judicata. Hinchee v. Fisher, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 351; Painters’ Union, Local 365; Painters’ Union Local 365, AFL-CIO v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 204; 19 Fla.Jur., Judgments and Decrees, § 111. Further, the appellee in the instant case may be estopped [by its actions in applying for a class “B” permit after being denied a class “C” permit] from accepting the benefits of the ordinance and then attacking same, under the doctrine of estoppel. Jannett v. Windham, 109 Fla. 129, 147 So. 296, 153 So. 784; McNulty v. Blackburn, Fla.1949, 42 So.2d 445; State ex rel. Watson v. Gray, Fla. 1950, 48 So.2d 84; 6 Fla. Jur., Constitutional Law, § 66.1
Therefore, for the several reasons above stated [and primarily because of our prior holding in State ex rel. Boozer v. City of Miami, supra] the action of the trial judge is reversed, with directions to find the appellee in violation of Ordinance No. 63-26, Code of Metropolitan Dade County, for *513maintaining- a sign on the premises involved other than that permitted by the class “B” permit which it obtained.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. State, 447 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ley v. Slade, 141 Fla. 310, 193 So. 70 (1940); Balzebre v. 2600 Douglas, Inc., 273 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Chatmon v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 268 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Metropolitan Dade County v. E.B. Elliott Advertising Co., 214 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Agreed, we may in appropriate cases invoke our extraordinary en banc jurisdiction under Fla.R.App.P. 9.331(a) in order to recede from a prior decision of this court, In re Rule 9.331, 416 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla.1982), but only, I…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. DOR Rich, Inc., 289 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…f Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., supra, under the doctrine of stare decisis control the instant action in the trial court. Rott v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.1957, 94 So. 2d 168; Metropolitan Dade County v. E. B. Elliott Advertising Co., Fla.App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 511. Further, the appellees as the tenants of Arthree, Inc. are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel by judgment from relitigating the same issues tried in Arthree, Inc., supra. Although they were not parties in that case, their claims…
-
Holman Lincoln Mercury Co. v. Dade Cnty., 215 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Boozer v. City of Miami, Fla.App. 1967, 193 So. 2d 449; Metropolitan Dade County v. E. B. Elliott Advertising Co., Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 511.…
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 (12 total)
- State Ex Rel. Watson v. Gray, 48 So.2d 84 (Fla. 1950)
- Warren D. Hinchee et ux. v. Charles E. Fisher et ux., 93 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1957)
- Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Indus., Inc., 68 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1953)
- Equities Inc. v. Scott, 154 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1944)
- Rott v. City OF Miami Beach, 94 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 1957)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Robert G. Boozer v. City OF Miami, 193 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- McNulty v. Blackburn, 42 So.2d 445 (Fla. 1949)
- Christie v. Highland Waterfront Co., 114 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1934)
- Lloyd v. Adair, 120 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Lloyd v. Adair, 120 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)