THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
ABRAHAM SILVER, RESPONDENT
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 upheld a temporary restraining order preventing Miami Beach from prosecuting a physician for treating patients in his home in a business-zoned area, finding the zoning ordinance as applied to be discriminatory and arbitrary under state and federal constitutional standards.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the restraining order. The court found that Silver's medical practice—treating patients who came to him without operating a clinic, hospital, or facility with annoying noises or odors—constituted a use that could be reasonably accommodated in a residentially-zoned area and that the zoning ordinance as applied was discriminatory and arbitrary.
“we are of the view that the amended complaint shows that respondent does not intend to operate a clinic, rest home, dispensary, health station or hospital on his property but metely desires to treat the sick and healed that apply to him in person”
Establishes the court's characterization of Silver's proposed use as a personal medical practice rather than a medical facility, which was critical to upholding the restraining order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAbraham Silver, a practicing physician, used his home at 6396 Collins Avenue in Miami Beach to treat patients who came to him. The property was locate…
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 Constitutional Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
We considered and disposed of one phase of this case in City of Miami Beach v. Silver, Fla., 67 So. 2d 646. When the mandate went down an amended complaint was filed, the trial court held it to be sufficient, so the city has appealed by certiorari from that decree.
The pertinent part of the decree appealed from enjoined the defendant from instituting or prosecuting criminal charges against appellee that may arise from the enforcement of Section 19 of Ordinance 289, City of Miami Beach, as amended-September 5, 1951, with regard to the use by appellee of certain described property at 6396 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, until further order of the ’ Court.
The sole point for determination is whether or not the trial court committed error in granting the temporary restraining order. Respondent was a practicing physician; using the property in question as his home and for treating patients who applied to him. The city refused him a certificate to use it for treating patients, prosecuted, convicted and fined him for doing so. .The property in question is in an area bounded by a main highway, gasoline filling stations and parking lots. The locality is zoned against use for business offices. The city refuses to let him use his property to practice his profession for that reason. It is contended that. the zoning ordinance in question is discriminatory, arbitrary, oppressive and violative of' the State and Federal Constitutions.
Like the trial court, we are of the view that the amended complaint shows that respondent does not intend to operate a clinic,- rest home, dispensary, health station or hospital on his property but metely desires to treat the sick and heal the wound ed that apply to him in person, that he does not specialize in children’s diseases, is not a surgeon, performs no major surgery and that' there will be no annoying noises, smells or obnoxious odors emanating from his place.
On the showing so made we think the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in entering the restraining order, so the certiorari is denied.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.