ROSE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT,

v.

NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 275 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
  …appearance here of this action for inverse condemnation. The facts of the instant case are fully set out in this court’s prior opinion and need not be repeated here. See: State Dept, of Transport, v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., [*290] Fla.App.1970, 230 So. 2d 726, cert. denied Fla., 239 So. 2d 587. The sole issue left for trial after our prior review dealt with a determination of the amount to be paid to appellee for the taking of its property for public highway purposes. In those proceedings the trial judge…
• Kester v. Baird R. Tewksbury, Jr., 701 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
  …igants may not, however, bind a trial court by stipulating to questions of law. See Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Bryant, 175 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), aff'd, 189 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1966); cf. Department of Transp. v. Florida East Coast Ry., 230 So. 2d 726, 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)(stating that issue as to whether the railroad was still the owner of the real property was a question of law). . Generally, the State is the owner of the land that lies beneath navigable waters. See Richard Hamann & Jeff Wad…
• State v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 239 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1970)
  …t pursuant to an express grant of easement for street construction purposes from the owner; and that (2) an attempt to apply the statute to the instant situation would generate serious constitutional consequences. It seems to me the decision below (230 So. 2d 726) in affirming summary judgment in favor of Respondent Railroad, on the facts presented, has misconstrued the effect of F.S. section 337.31, F.S.A., and its predecessors, and has arrived at a decision in direct conflict with prior pronouncements inte…