WILLIAM MARKHAM, AS BROWARD COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, PETITIONER,
v.
MACCABEE INVESTMENTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
A private party's leasehold interest in a municipally owned facility used for theater productions is taxable.
A private party leased a municipally owned facility for theater productions. The trial court found the leasehold interest taxable, but the District Co…
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 Public Purpose Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Chief Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reported at 311 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
The trial court held that a private party’s leasehold interest in a municipally owned facility used primarily for theater productions was taxable. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding the leasehold was tax exempt because the use of the facility served a public purpose within the meaning of Chapter 196, Florida Statutes. We have jurisdiction because the decision of the District Court conflicts with Brandes v. City of Deerfield Beach, 186 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1966).1
During the pendency of this action we rendered our decision in Volusia County v. Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities District, 341 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1976), which is controlling and which also conflicts with the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The decision below is quashed, and the cause is remanded for action consistent with our Volusia County opinion, supra.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCH-ETT, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
COE v. ITT Cmty. Dev. Corp., 362 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1978)…rse, provides the basis of our jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. . See Lake Worth Towers, Inc. v. Gerstung, 262 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1972). . Maccabee Investments, Inc. v. Markham, 311 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), rev’d on other grounds, 343 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1977); Bailey v. Plaza Hotel Corp., 335 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1977). [*10] The Maccabee court’s conclusion that this provision constitutes a statute of limitation rather than a jurisdictional requis…
-
R. R. (Bob) Walden v. Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth., 375 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1979)…ve: “It is the utilization of leased property from a governmental source that determines [*287] whether it is taxable under the Constitution.” Straughn v. Camp, supra, at 695. 341 So. 2d at 502. Similarly, in Markham v. Maccabee Investments, Inc., 343 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1977), we refused to apply the exemption of sections 196.012(5) and 196.199(2) to a private, profit-making corporation utilizing a government leasehold. The Fourth District in Markham had held that a private party’s leasehold interest in a muni…
-
The Sebring Airport Auth. & Sebring Int'l Raceway, Inc. v. McINTYRE, 783 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2001)…ition of "public purpose” in the context of government property used by non-governmental issues: In 1975, the Fourth District Court of Appeals of Florida, in Maccabee Investments, Inc. v. Markham, 311 So. 2d 718, 722 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975)[, rev’d, 343 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1977)] noted that "... there is no precise rule or standard by which to determine whether the project, facility or activity is serving a municipal or public purpose within the meaning of the constitutional provision. Not only is there an absenc…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Merrill Lynch v. Byrne, 341 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1976)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities Dist., 341 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1976)
- Brandes v. City OF Deerfield Beach, 186 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1966)
- MacCabee Invs., Inc. v. Markham, 311 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)