CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SAMUEL J. MEISELMAN, 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.
Miami Beach appeals from an injunction preventing it from interfering with a large rooftop neon sign. The court reversed, holding that the city was not estopped from revoking a building permit for a sign that violated municipal ordinance size limitations for roof signs.
The city is not estopped from revoking the permit. The sign was classified as a roof sign under the ordinance regardless of its permit description, and it violated the 224 square feet size limitation for roof signs by measuring 437 square feet.
“The Fly Delta sign was clearly a roof sign under the ordinance regardless of what it may have been called, by some of the persons involved in its erection.”
Establishes that the sign's actual construction determines its classification under the ordinance, not its permit description.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami Beach issued a building permit on October 16, 1967, for a 'flat wall sign—Fly Delta.' The permitee erected a large flashing red neon…
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 Municipal Ordinance Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
The City of Miami Beach, Florida, appeals from a final order permanently enjoining it from “interfering in any way with the maintenance and use of the ‘Fly Delta’ sign” located on appellee’s building in that city.
We reverse. The city issued a building permit on October 16, 1967, which described the work to be done as “flat wall sign— Fly Delta.” The city ordinance does not limit the size of flat signs, and they are defined as:
“any signs erected parallel to the face of or on the outside wall of any building and supported throughout their length by such wall; or any signs in any way applied flat against walls.”
“Roof signs” are defined in the ordinance as “Any signs erected completely over the roof of any building,” and are limited in size to 224 square feet.
The record reveals that appellee erected on the roof of his commercial building in Miami Beach a large, flashing red neon sign. It operates day and night, and is 437 square feet in area, and reads “Fly Delta.”
The Fly Delta sign was clearly a roof sign under the ordinance regardless of what it may have been called, by some of the persons involved in its erection. It exceeds the permissible limitations for the size of roof signs under the ordinance.
The city is not estopped under the circumstances herein to revoke a permit which had been obtained in violation of its ordinance. See Gross v. City of Miami, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 418; Abenkay Realty Corp. v. Dade County, Fla.App.1966, 185 *775So.2d 777; 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 173; 53 C.J.S. Licenses § 44b.
The final decree herein appealed is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded for action consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Tri-State Sys., Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp., 500 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…lic policy or which arise from conduct resulting from a mistake of law, citing Godson v. Town of Surfside, 150 Fla. 614, 8 So. 2d 497 (1942); Salz v. Department of Administration, 432 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); City of Miami Beach v. Meiselman, 216 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1969). Each of these cases is factually distinguishable, and we do not place the facts of the present case into any of the cited categories. No statute or rule has been cited to us prohibiting DO…
-
Roberto C. Fraga, M.D. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 464 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ot applicable in transactions which are forbidden by statute or which are contrary to public policy. See Dade County v. Bengis Associates, Inc., 257 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 261 So. 2d 839 (Fla.1972); City of Miami Beach v. Meiselman, 216 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1969); State ex rel. Schwartz v. City of Hialeah, 156 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Courts have consistently refused to apply estoppel against the state on the basis of unauthorized or mistaken…1 / 2
-
Salz v. Dep't of Admin., 432 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…not in general apply in transactions that are forbidden by statute or that are contrary to public policy.” See Dade County v. Bengis Associates, 257 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 261 So. 2d 839 (Fla.1972); City of Miami Beach v. Meiselman, 216 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1969); State ex rel. Schwartz v. City of Hialeah, 156 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Estoppel is established by proving “1) a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-ass…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gross v. City of Miami, 62 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1953)
- Abenkay Realty Corp. v. Dade Cnty., 185 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)