J. W. WHITTENTON, SR., ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF NEW SMYRNA BEACH, APPELLEE
J. W. WHITTENTON, SR., ET UX., APPELLANTS,
CITY OF NEW SMYRNA BEACH, APPELLEE
351 So. 2d 738
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1977)
Caution
Cited by 18 cases
Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.
Viewed in a light favorable to the City, the evidence supports the trial court’s decision that the City is not estopped to enforce its zoning ordinance proscribing the use of appellants’ house by paying boarders. The evidence on the elements of estoppel was conflicting and did not establish appellants’ right to continued use as a matter of law. City of North Miami v. Margulies, 289 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Lucas v. State, 568 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1990)…o answer the question. A proffer is necessary to preserve a claim such as this because an appellate court will not otherwise speculate about the admissibility of such evidence. Salamy v. State, 509 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Phillips v. State, 351 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1978). We therefore find this claim has not been preserved for review.4 Over a defense objection the court allowed the victim’s mother to testify that, a few days before the murder, Lucas had be…
-
Wilson v. State, 436 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1983)…ce is within the trial court’s discretion and that court’s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing of clear abuse. Courtney v. State, 358 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 710 (Fla.1978); Phillips v. State, 351 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1978); Allen v. State, 340 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Reed v. State, 224 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). No such abuse has been demonstrated in the instant case. This Court has held on numero…
-
Tavoris A. Rozier v. State, 636 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ow defense counsel to proffer the witness’s excluded testimony. The primary purpose of a proffer is to include the proposed evidence in the record so the appellate court can determine whether the trial court’s ruling was correct. Phillips v. State, 351 So. 2d 738, 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Accordingly, refusing to allow a proffer of evidence is error because it precludes full and effective appellate review. Piccirri [*1388] llo v. State, 329 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In the instant ease, the trial cou…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF N. Miami v. Margulies, 289 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)