FRED GLOGGER, APPELLANT,
v.
A. C. BELL AND T. R. BELL, AND BELL BROTHERS COMPANY, 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.
The court held that the chancellor did not err in enjoining the construction and operation of an animal reduction plant due to its nuisance potential.
Appellant obtained a zoning permit for an animal reduction plant, spending significant funds on land and construction. However, the chancellor found t…
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 Private Nuisance cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal- is from a final decree enjoining the construction and operation of an animal reduction plant on lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, Block R, Para Villa Heights Addition, Dade County, Florida, on the ground that the operation of such a plant would constitute both a public and a private nuisance.
*2It was shown that the operation .of the plant on the lands proponed vas denied by the-‘I}ade. County Z.oning Board but that the decision of the. latter was overruléd by the adjustment board provided under Chapter 17833, Acts of 1937, and a permit for the construction of appropriate buildings was grai¡ite.d.¡ appellant relies on' his. permit; from the zoning board to construct his plant and contends that he should not now be restrained from its completion and operation after having spent large sums looking to that end.
!';It' is shoWn'that he had-expended about '$1800 for' the lands and'in the construction of the plant but the chancellor found that the permit Was improperly issued in that the business of appellant does not fall within the classifications allowed by the'■-zoning regulations. The evidence shows that the area around the plant is occupied by a number of small homes and that there are two large dairies and a tourist court in which there are hundreds of thousands of dollars invested. It is shown that the' odors emanating from the plant will.materially affect thése properties, that such odors carry for great distances and that they often affect the health of those nearby besides causing nausea and discomfort. Other reasons not necessary.to recite are urged as grounds to sustain the Chancellor.
In view of this showing, we must decline to hold him in error for granting the injunction. In this holding, we have not overlooked National Container Corporation v. Stockton, et al., 138 Fla. 32, 189 So. 4, and other cases relied on by Appellant.
'Affirmed.
'Brown,' C J., Buford, Whitfield and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas and Adams, J. J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. The City OF Gainesville, 918 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2005)…Fla. 657,195 So. 607 (1940)). In the few cases in which this Court was expressly called upon to construe the “municipal purposes” exemptions in the 1885 Constitution, we deferred to the Legislature. In State ex rel. Harper v. McDavid, 145 Fla. 605, 200 So. 100 (1941), a taxpayer challenged an exemption for property owned by a city housing authority and used for a low-rent housing and slum clearance project. The Legislature had authorized municipalities to erect low-rent housing units and exempted them fro…1 / 3
-
State of Fla. & the taxpayers v. Inter-American Ctr. Auth., 84 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1955)…all respects for the benefit of the people of this state and is a public purpose”. Saunders v. City of Jacksonville, 157 Fla. 240, 25 So. 2d 648; State v. Monroe County, 148 Fla. 111, 3 So. 2d 754, and State ex rel. Harper v. McDavid, 145 Fla. 605, 200 So. 100, 133 A.L.R. 360, uphold such findings. The doctrine of the foregoing cases is perhaps the best answer to this question. In other words, is the construction of an Inter-American Cultural and Trade Center violative of Section 10, Article IX of the Co…
-
Park-N-Shop, Inc. v. Sparkman, 99 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1957)…taxable character of property is the nature of the use to which it is put and not the ownership. City of Lakeland v. Amos, 106 Fla. 873, 143 So. 744; University Club v. Lanier, 119 Fla. 146, 161 So. 78; State ex rel. Harper v. McDavid, 145 Fla. 605, 200 So. 100, 133 A.L.R. 360; City of Cleveland v. Ruple, 130 Ohio St. 465, 200 N.E. 507, 103 A.L.R. 853. But these decisions are of no assistance because the primary problem is whether or not a tax may be levied on property of the county. We will presently reac…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Container Corp. v. State, 138 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1939)