ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
DAN F. MICKLER ET AL., RESPONDENTS
The decision under review is quashed and the cause remanded under the authority of Conrad v. Sapp, filed July 14, 1971, 252 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971) and for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion in the District Court, 241 So.2d 415, with directions to enter a judgment extending “agricultural zoning” to the land involved.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
DEKLE, J., dissents with opinion.
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent on authority of Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So.2d 665 (Fla.1971), and Conrad v. Sapp, 252 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971). We there established that in cases of disputed facts the granting or denying of the beneficial “agricultural” classification by the taxing authorities, and any court review thereof, are to be based upon the particular facts of each case under applicable standards (criteria); that the determination arrives in this Court with a presumption of correctness (under this well-established rule); and that the decision will be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence. This case is supported by competent, substantial evidence, as were Greenwood and Sapp. It should be affirmed.
Accordingly, I would uphold the discretion here exercised by the Agricultural Zoning Board, by the able Circuit Judge and then by the First District Court of Appeal in denying the agricultural zoning which petitioner sought.
DEKLE, Justice
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent on authority of Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1971), and Conrad v. Sapp, 252 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971). We there established that in cases of disputed facts the granting or denying of the beneficial “agricultural” classification by the taxing authorities, and any court review thereof, are to be based upon the particular facts of each case under applicable standards (criteria); that the determination arrives in this Court with a presumption of correctness (under this well-established rule); and that the decision will be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence. This case is supported by competent, substantial evidence, as were Greenwood and Sapp. It should be affirmed.
Accordingly, I would uphold the discretion here exercised by the Agricultural Zoning Board, by the able Circuit Judge and then by the First District Court of Appeal in denying the agricultural zoning which petitioner sought.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
ST. JOE Paper Co. v. Mickler, 252 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)…PER CURIAM. The decision under review is quashed and the cause remanded under the authority of Conrad v. Sapp, filed July 14, 1971, 252 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971) and for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion in the District Court, 241 So. 2d 415, with directions to enter a judgment extending “agricultural zoning” to the land involved. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, A…1 / 2
-
Shellle E. McKINNEY v. Alpha L. Hunt and Elizabeth S. Hunt, 251 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…tion of his land constitutes more of a bona fide agricultural operation than was found by the Supreme Court to constitute a bona fide forestry operation by the landowners in the decision recently rendered by it in the cases of Conrad v. Sapp., Fla., 252 So. 2d 225, opinion filed July 14, 1971, and St. Joe Paper Company v. Mickler, Fla., 252 So. 2d 225, opinion filed July 21, 1971. It is only because of the Supreme Court’s conception of what constitutes bona fide agricultural or forestry operation as set forth…1 / 2
-
Love PGI P'rs, LP v. Schultz, 706 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…d 368 (Fla.1977). This is generally a fact determination, appropriate for the trial court to make. An appellate court must affirm, if there is sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court’s ruling. Hausman v. Rudkin; Conrad v. J.M. Sapp, 252 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971); Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1971). Appellants argue that the denial of an agricultural classification in this case was. based on testimony that the natural regeneration forestry operation on these lands was not, nor could it…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carroll v. State, 251 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1971)
- ST. JOE Paper Co. v. Mickler, 252 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Conrad v. Sapp, 252 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- ST. JOE Paper Co. v. Mickler, 241 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1971)