FRANK BROWN, JR., APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Straughn v. Harlan Tuck and Florence P. Tuck, 354 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1977)
  …he land is physically used for agricultural purposes, it must be accorded agricultural zoning, provided the use is primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes. Hausman v. Rudkin, 268 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). In accord see Smith v. Parrish, 262 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) and Smith v. Ring, 250 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). In 1972, Section 193.461 was substantially modified by Chapter 72-181, Laws of Florida (1972). However, as evidenced by subsection (3)(b) of the statute, “use” is still the…
• Ford Hausman v. Rudkin, 268 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
  …to the application of agricultural zoning. The favorable tax treatment provided by the statute is predicated on land use, that is, physical activity conducted on the land. Smith v. Ring, Fla.App.1971, 250 So. 2d 913; Smith v. Parrish, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So. 2d 237. Under the terms of the statute, as we understand them, if the land is physically used for agricultural purposes, it must be accorded agricultural zoning, provided the use is “primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes.” (Emphasis added.) The ter…
• Bass v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 374 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1979)
  …he land is physically used for agricultural purposes, it must be accorded agricultural zoning, provided the use is primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes. Hausman v. Rudkin, 268 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). In accord see Smith v. Parrish, 262 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) and Smith v. Ring, 250 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). In 1972, Section 193.461 was substantially modified by Chapter 72-181, Laws of Florida (1972). However, as evidenced by subsection (3)(b) of the statute, “use” is still the…

Authorities Cited

• Youngker v. State, 215 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)