HOBSON COLLIER AND LOUISE COLLIER, HIS WIFE, AND HOBSON C. KING AND BLONNIE B. KING, HIS WIFE, PETITIONERS,
v.
CITY OF HOMESTEAD, A MUNICIPAL 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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari, finding that the lower court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a summary final decree. This means the court did not rule on the validity of the zoning ordinances themselves, only that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate clear error in the lower court's decision.
No, the lower court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a summary final decree. The petitioners failed to demonstrate clear error in the lower court's decision.
“The sole question presented by the peti-' tion for certiorari in this case is whether the lower court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for. a summary final decree.”
This quote frames the specific legal question before the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners, plaintiffs in the lower court, sought a summary final decree to invalidate the zoning ordinances of the City of Homestead. The lower …
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 Summary Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Chief Justice.
The sole question presented by the peti-‘ tion for certiorari in this case is whether the lower court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for. a summary final decree. ' To have granted the motion for summary final decree would have resulted in a judicial' determination that the zoning ordinances of the City of Homestead were invalid and unenforceable.
The burden of making error clearly appear is upon the petitioners. They have failed to carry this burden by virtue of which the petition for certiorari is denied.
This denial of the petition for certiorari shall not be construed as passing'upon any of the issues in the litigation and decides only that no error has been made to appear on the basis of which the order sought to be reviewed could be disturbed. Compare State Road Department v. Lewis, Fla., 79 So. 2d 699, text 700.
TERRELL, ROBERTS and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n v. Bell, 116 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1959)…t cannot be construed as a determination of the issues presented in the petition therefor and cannot be utilized as precedent or authority for or against the propositions urged or defended in such proceedings. Collier v. City of Homestead, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 201. The denial of certiorari by this Court in the Marsiglia case cannot therefore be urged as approval by this Court of the rule announced therein. The opinion of the full commission in the Marsiglia case stands for the proposition that a functional d…
-
Edelmira Chacon v. State, 102 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1957)…cessary to determine whether the affidavit in the instant case was adequate to support the subsequently issued search warrant. We think the affidavit here meets all of the requirements of the pronouncements of this Court in Perez v. State, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 201. It is the view of the majority of the Court that the instant case presents no substantial characteristics that would distinguish it from the rule of the Perez case. In Perez the substance of the affidavit was that a deputy sheriff saw an informer d…
-
Grady Allen Belger v. State, 171 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…RAWLS, J., concur. . Grant v. State of Florida, Fla., 171 So. 2d 361. Opinion filed January 8, 1965. . Young v. State, (Fla.1962) 140 So. 2d 97, 98, 99; Phillips v. State, 88 Fla. 117, 101 So. 204. . § 925.04, F.S.A. . Perez v. State, (Fla.1955) 81 So. 2d 201, 204. . McLendon v. State, 90 Fla. 272, 105 So. 406. . Redditt v. State of Florida, (Fla.1955) 84 So. 2d 317.…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State Rd. Dept. OF Fla. v. Lewis, 79 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1955)