STATE, EX REL. RUDOLPH TOWNSEND, ET AL.,
v.
J. J. FARREY, AS BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, AND THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
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.
Property owners sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a municipal zoning classification that they contended was arbitrary and unreasonable. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the writ, holding that the zoning restrictions satisfied constitutional requirements of rational classification and did not violate equal protection principles.
The zoning restrictions were not so unreasonable as to violate constitutional principles requiring that classifications adopted for regulation have a just relation to essential differences in conditions and circumstances, and that all similarly situated properties have similar rights. The restrictions were upheld as a valid exercise of municipal zoning authority.
“classifications adopted for regulation should have some just relation to the essential difference of conditions and circumstances, with reference to the subject matter regulated, and that all similarly situated should have similar rights”
Establishes the constitutional standard for valid zoning classifications and equal protection requirement that the trial court and appellate court applied to evaluate the ordinance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner owned property on the border line of a zoned area in Miami Beach. The property was subject to zoning restrictions more restrictive than…
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 Arbitrary And Unreasonable Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
—The writ of error brings for review judgment against the petitioner in mandamus proceedings, as follows:
“The above styled cause comes on before this Court to be heard upon the alternative writ of mandamus, the respondent’s answer thereto, and evidence adduced upon the issues, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it appears unto the Court that the plaintiff herein complains that the defendant’s exercise of the police power of zoning has been exercised in such an arbitrary and unreasonable manner as to deprive the plaintiff of reasonable use of his property.
*16“I find that the market value of the plaintiff’s property would be increased by fifty per cent, or more if the restrictions were no greater than those upon property across the street to the east. Plaintiff’s property is on the border line of the zoned area.
“It is self-evident that all areas must have a boundary or border line. Plaintiff contends for a change here of the border line, claiming like property should be likewise zoned and that his property properly should be classified for a less restrictive use than is required by the present ordinance.
“I take it to be the law that classifications adopted for regulation should have some just relation to the essential difference of conditions and circumstances, with reference to the subject matter regulated, and that all similarly situated should have similar rights and that such legislation as conforms thereto must be upheld by the courts, and that any legislative restrictions that violate this principle are unreasonable and unnatural, and are subject to be stricken down by the court.
“I do not find that the zoning restrictions as placed upon the property to be so unreasonable as to violate the foregoing principles of law.
“It Is Therefore Considered, Ordered and Adjudged. that the petitioner take nothing by its writ and that the defendant go hence without day.
..“Done and Ordered at Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of April, A. D. 1937.”
On consideration of the entire record, we find no reversible error reflected therein.
No new questions of law are presented which have not heretofore been discussed and ruled upon in opinions and judgments promulgated by this Court and, therefore, we feel that no useful purpose may be accomplished by re*17peating what we have heretofore said in other cases concerning like questions.
The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
So ordered.
Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1941)…hese streets property which may be devoted to business abruptly ends and that which may be used for hotels and apartments as suddenly [*485] begins but there must be a line of demarcation between them somewhere. See State ex rel. Townsend v. Farrey, 133 Fla. 15, 182 So. 448; Z. a. h. n. v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 234 Pac. 388. The fact that his land is situated across the street from that on which commercial enterprises may be operated was not alone enough to support plaintiff’s position that…
-
Smith v. City OF Miami Beach, 213 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…re of these streets property which may be devoted to business abruptly ends and that which may be used for hotels and apartments as suddenly begins but there must be a line of demarcation between them somewhere. See State ex rel. Townsend v. Farrey, 133 Fla. 15, 182 So. 448; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 234 P. 388. The fact that his land is situated across the street from that on which commercial enterprises may be operated was not alone enough to support plaintiff’s position that he should…
-
Allapattah Cmty. Ass'n v. City OF Miami, 379 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…re of these streets property which may be devoted to business abruptly ends and that which may be used for hotels and apartments as suddenly begins but there must be a line of demarcation between them somewhere. See State ex rel. Townsend v. Farrey, 133 Fla. 15, 182 So. 448; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497, 234 P. 388. The fact that his land is situated across the street from that on which commercial enterprises may be operated was not alone enough to support plaintiff’s position that he should…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence