ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CHOCTAWHATCHEE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., APPELLEE
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.
St. Joe Paper Company appealed a condemnation judgment, challenging the necessity of Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative's taking of its land for a power line right-of-way. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a defendant in a condemnation proceeding cannot question necessity without alleging fraud, bad faith, or gross abuse of discretion by the condemning authority.
A defendant in a condemnation proceeding cannot raise a justiciable issue as to the necessity for exercising the power of eminent domain unless the defendant alleges fraud, bad faith, or gross abuse of discretion on the part of the condemning authority. St. Joe's allegations did not contain such allegations and therefore were legally insufficient.
“It is the rule of this jurisdiction that in order to make a justiciable issue as to the necessity for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, a contestant must allege "fraud, bad faith or gross abuse of discretion" on the part of the condemning authority.”
States the controlling legal standard that requires specific allegations of misconduct to challenge the necessity for condemnation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChoctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, a cooperative corporation, filed a petition to condemn lands owned by St. Joe Paper Company for a right-of-way to…
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 Necessity For Taking cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in a condemnation proceeding.
Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, Inc., a cooperative corporation organized pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 425, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., filed its petition to condemn certain lands for a right-of-way through which to construct and operate power lines for transmission of' electric current to the general public. St. Joe' Paper Company, a corporation, the owner of the lands sought to be condemned, filed its answer contesting the condemnation proceedings on the grounds (1) that the Coop did not need a right-of-way as wide as that sought, (2) that the Coop should postpone the erection of its power line until the State Road Department could decide where a projected state road should be located in the area, so that the power line of the Coop might track the state road right-of-way, and (3) that a private corporation, namely, the Gulf Power Corporation, had “indicated its desire and willingness” to serve the area in question and thereby make power available there, and consequently “the taking of ,the lands * * * by the petitioner will be useless.”
The trial court held that these allegations of the answer were legally insufficient to raise an issue as to an abuse of discretion by the petitioner in determining the necessity for condemning the property, and, at final hearing, limited the defendant to the presentation of evidence on the value of the right-of-way and the consequent damage arising from its appropriation.
The question on the appeal is whether a defendant in a condemnation proceeding may question the necessity for taking private property for public use, in the absence of any allegation of fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion on the part of those determining such necessity.
We find no error in the judgment appealed from. It is the rule of this jurisdiction that in order to make a justiciable issue as to the necessity for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, a contestant must allege “fraud, had faith or gross abuse of discretion” on the part of the condemning authority. Porter v. Columbia County, Fla., 75 So. 2d 699; Inland Waterway Development Co. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 38 So. 2d 676. The answer did not contain these allegations.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1970)…owment Fund, Inc., supra’, Wilton v. St. Johns County, supra; Sibley v. Volusia County, supra; Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Pan American Airways, 137 Fla. 808, 188 So. 820 (Fla. 1939); St. Joe Paper Co. v. Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, 79 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1955). The question of “necessity” thus boils down to two separate and distinct phases. Initially the condemning authority is obligated by statute to show a reasonable necessity for the condemnation. Once this is shown the landowner must then…
Authorities Cited
- Inland Waterway Develop. v. City of Jacksonville, 38 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1948)
- Porter v. Columbia Cnty., 75 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1954)