TAM SIXTY CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
R. R. (BOB) WALDEN, AS TAX ASSESSOR OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEES; TAM SIXTY CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. FRANK NEFF ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Tam Sixty Corporation appealed a trial court judgment denying agricultural zoning classification for property tax purposes in Hillsborough County, Florida. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's finding that the property was not entitled to agricultural zoning, applying the substantial evidence standard of review established in recent Florida Supreme Court precedent.
The court affirmed the trial judge's finding that the property was not entitled to agricultural zoning classification. The determination of whether land qualifies for agricultural zoning is a question of fact to be resolved based on the evidence and circumstances of each case, and appellate review is limited to examining the sufficiency of evidence supporting the trial court's findings.
[1] Whether a particular tract of land is to be classified as agricultural for tax assessment purposes is a question of fact to be determined upon the evidence and the partic…
[2] An appellate court's role in reviewing factual determinations is limited to considering the sufficiency of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Clearly, it is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact, be it a jury or a trial judge. Accordingly, although an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion had it been the initial arbitrator of the factual issues, if a review of the record reflects competent, substantial evidence supporting the findings of the chancellor, the judgment should be affirmed.”
Establishes the standard of review for appellate consideration of factual findings by trial courts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Tax Assessor of Hillsborough County and the County Agricultural Zoning Board denied agricultural zoning classification for the subject property fo…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs, Tam Sixty Corporation, et al., seek appellate review of an adverse final judgment finding that the property in question was not entitled to an agricultural zoning classification for the purpose of taxation. The Tax Assessor of Hillsborough County and the County Agricultural Zoning Board of Hillsborough County declared that for the tax years of 1967 and 1968 this land was not entitled to agricultural zoning. Plaintiffs sued the Tax Assessor and the Zoning Board for a declaration of their rights. Judge Patton entered a twenty-one page final judgment in which he reviewed and summarized all the evidence, and found that this land was in fact not entitled to an agricultural zoning.
The very recent Florida Supreme Court cases of Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So.2d 665 filed July 12, 1971, and Conrad v. Sapp, 252 So.2d 225 filed July 14, 1971, are controlling in this matter. These cases involved a determination of whether or not a bona fide forestry operation existed for the purpose of agricultural zoning. Writing in Greenwood, Justice Dekle said:
“Moreover, because the considerations involved in these cases are primarily questions of fact, the role of the District Courts should, in general, be limited to a consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence. Clearly, it is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact, be it a jury or a trial judge. Accordingly, although an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion had it been the initial arbitrator of the factual issues, if a review of the record reflects competent, substantial evidence supporting the findings of the chancellor, the judgment should be affirmed.”
In Conrad, the Supreme Court said:
“Whether a particular tract of land is to be classified as agricultural for tax assessment purposes is a question of fact to be determined upon the evidence and the particular circumstances present in each case.”
*546We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, and find that there is competent and substantial evidence to support Judge Patton’s findings. The judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
TAM Sixty Corp. v. R. R. (Bob) Walden, 261 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 254 So. 2d 545. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur. BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.…
Authorities 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)