LEON HEBB
v.
CITY OF BARTOW
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a property owner's complaint seeking to enjoin a city from closing a street. The court found the property owner failed to allege a substantial injury distinct from that of the general public.
No, a property owner does not have standing to enjoin a city from closing a street if the alleged injury is not substantially different in kind from that suffered by the public generally.
“The allegations of the bill of complaint do not show a substantial injury to the plaintiff that is materially different, in kind and not only in degree, from inconvenience to the public generally, therefore plaintiff is not shown to be entitled to the relief prayed for.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for denying the injunction, establishing the standard for private injury distinct from public inconvenience.
A property owner filed a bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the City of Bartow from closing a street. The lower court dismissed the bill of complaint…
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.
An appeal was taken from a decree that the bill of complaint shall stand dismissed if not amended in ten days and from an order denying a rehearing.
The suit was brought by a property owner to enjoin the city from closing a street.
The allegations of the bill of complaint do n'ot show a substantial injury to the plaintiff that is materially different, in kind and not only in degree, from inconvenience to the public generally, therefore plaintiff is not shown to be entitled to the relief prayed for. See Bozeman v. City of St. Petersburg, 74 Fla. 336, 76 So. 894.
Affirmed.
*79Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Buford, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Terrell and Thomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.