JOHN E. WITHERS TRANSFER & STORAGE CO., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
R. K. OVERSTREET, DADE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, 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.
Warehousing companies operating under Florida Public Service Commission certificates challenged Dade County and municipal occupational license taxes as invalid. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that such taxes could be imposed and rejected plaintiffs' attempt to pursue the case as a class action.
The court affirmed that taxing authorities could levy occupational license taxes on the plaintiffs and upheld the trial court's rejection of the case as a class action, finding the essential ingredient of a class action—a common right of recovery based on the same essential facts—was lacking.
[1] A county and its municipalities may levy occupational license taxes on companies operating under certificates of public convenience and necessity.
[2] A class action requires a common right of recovery based on the same essential facts for all members of the class.
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“Can the taxing authorities (defendants) impose an occupational license tax for warehousing under the facts in this case, on companies operating under certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by the Florida Public Service Commission and pursuant to F.S. 323.15 and 323.16?”
States the primary legal question presented by plaintiffs on appeal regarding whether occupational license taxes could be imposed on certificated warehousing operations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs were warehousing companies operating under certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by the Florida Public Service Commission…
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 Injunctive Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiffs appeal from an adverse final declaratory and- injunctive decree. The comprehensive decree made extensive findings of fact and ruled that Dade County and four municipalities could levy occupational license taxes on plaintiffs and that this action was not a proper class suit.
Plaintiffs’ first point on appeal is: “Can the taxing authorities (defendants) impose an occupational license tax for warehousing under the facts in this case, on companies operating under certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by the Florida Public Service Commission and pursuant to F.S. 323.15 and 323.16? [F.S.A.]”
We have considered the point raised and argued and conclude the trial judge was correct and should be affirmed. See Over-*856street v. Santini Bros., Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 186; and Panama City v. Hi-Octane Terminal Company, Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 197.
Plaintiffs’ final point for reversal is directed toward that part of the final decree in which the court declined to accept the case as a class action. Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 734 held that the essential ingredients of a class action was a common right of recovery based on the same essential facts. The final decree herein stated, in pertinent part:
“Since the facts relating to the four main plaintiffs are not wholly the same, and since the court has no knowledge of the facts applicable to the other 77 members of the alleged class because no relevant testimony was adduced as to them, the court will not regard this cause as a single class action * * * ”
See Osceola Groves v. Wiley, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 700; and City of Lakeland v. Chase Nat. Co., 159 Fla. 783, 32 So.2d 833 (1947). We find no reversible error in the trial court order declining to accept this case as a class action.
The final decree also set forth certain principles of criteria which the defendant taxing authorities and officials were required to follow. It enumerated approximately six principles or criteria which the court indicated should be followed in the instant case. We express no opinion as to the validity of these principles or criteria or as to whether they should be applied in other or similar taxing cases as we are of the view that they are not properly before us in this appeal.
We have discussed and decided the only two points raised by the plaintiffs in their appeal from the final decree.
For the aforesaid reasons the final decree is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frankel v. City OF Miami Beach, 340 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1976)…litan Dade County v. Maddox, 242 So. 2d 165 (Fla. App.3d 1971) (citing Osceola Groves); Wilson v. First National Bank of Miami Springs, 254 So. 2d 362 (Fla.App.3d 1971) (citing Osceola Groves), John E. Withers Transfer and Storage Co. v. Overstreet, 254 So. 2d 855 (Fla.App.3d 1971) (citing Osceola Groves), Curtis Publishing Co. v. Bader, 266 So. 2d 78 (Fla.App.3d 1972) (citing Wilson which relied upon Osceola Groves); Daniels v. National Brands Tire Co., Inc., 270 So. 2d 448 (Fla.App.3d 1972) (citing Osceola…
Authorities Cited
- Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, 154 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- City OF Lakeland v. Chase Nat'l Co. a Corp., 159 Fla. 783 (Fla. 1947)
- Edelblut v. Grady, 78 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1955)
- Osceola Groves, Inc. v. Wiley, 78 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1955)
- Panama City v. Hi-Octane Terminal Co., 121 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Overstreet v. Santini Bros., 189 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)