BRYON R. CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF ORLANDO, 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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's final judgment, holding that a specific chapter of Florida's special acts did not provide the exclusive method for challenging the constitutional validity of an Orlando zoning ordinance. The court relied on several prior decisions to reach its conclusion.
No, Chapter 67-1833 of the Florida Special Acts of 1967 does not provide the sole means for judicially reviewing the constitutional validity of an Orlando zoning ordinance.
“it is our opinion that the final judgment from which this appeal was taken should be affirmed on the authority of: County of Brevard v. Woodham, Fla.App.1969, 223 So. 2d 344; McCormick v. City of Pensacola, Fla.App. 1968, 216 So. 2d 785; City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, Fla.1953, 71 So. 2d 148; City of Miami v. Zorovich, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 31 (cert. den. Fla.1967, 201 So. 2d 554); and City of St. Petersburg v. Aikin, Fla.1968, 217 So. 2d 315.”
Establishes the basis for affirming the lower court's decision by citing controlling precedent.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Bryon R. Carter, appealed a final judgment from the City of Orlando. The core of the dispute involved the method by which the constitut…
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 Statutory Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
After a thorough review of the briefs and record in this cause, it is our opinion that the final judgment from which this appeal was taken should be affirmed on the authority of: County of Brevard v. Woodham, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 344; McCormick v. City of Pensacola, Fla.App. 1968, 216 So.2d 785; City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, Fla.1953, 71 So.2d 148; City of Miami v. Zorovich, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 31 (cert. den. Fla.1967, 201 So.2d 554); and City of St. Petersburg v. Aikin, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 315.
*170We reject the appellee’s contention that Ch. 67-1833, Laws of Florida, Special Acts, 1967, provides the sole means whereby the constitutional validity of an Orlando zoning ordinance may be subjected to judicial review. See Harris v. Goff, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 642, and 30 Fla.Jur., Statutes, § 106.
Affirmed.
CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zukowski v. City OF Casselberry, 244 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…Harris v. Goff, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 642. See also Keay v. City of Coral Gables, Fla. App.1970, 236 So. 2d 133; Village of Pembroke Pines v. Zitreen, Fla.App. 1962, 143 So. 2d 660; and our own decision in Carter v. City of Orlando, Fla.App.1969, 225 So. 2d 169. Such proceedings even though review are in the nature of proceedings de novo. Josephson v. Autry, et al., Fla.1957, 96 So. 2d 784. The appellant has properly framed his complaint on constitutional grounds2 and should not be denied his day in court…
Authorities Cited
- City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, 71 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1953)
- City OF ST. Petersburg v. Aikin, 217 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1968)
- Harris v. H.A. Goff, 151 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- MPS Indus., Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union NO. 769, 223 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Miami Gray Line Boats, Inc. v. Madison Sales Corp., 195 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- The City OF Miami v. Zorovich, 195 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Williams v. Bray, 201 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1967)
- Schack v. Fourth Dist. Court OF Appeal of Fla. & Edward W. Starr, 201 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1967)
- Saxon v. Weaver, 216 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)