TRI-STATE SYSTEMS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 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.
The court reversed the Department of Transportation's revocation of outdoor sign permits, finding that the hearing officer's credibility determination was inconsistent with a prior appellate decision involving identical parties and facts.
The hearing officer's rejection of Tri-State's equitable estoppel defense based solely on witness credibility was reversed because an identical issue involving the same parties had been previously resolved by the court.
[1] A hearing officer's credibility determination rejecting witness testimony in an equitable estoppel claim may be reversed where a prior appellate decision has resolved the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTri-State Systems purchased outdoor sign permits from Henderson Signs and later sought to rely on those permits. The Department of Transportation revo…
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 Corroboration Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final order of the Department of Transportation (DOT) revoking several outdoor sign permits originally obtained by Henderson Signs and later transferred to Tri-State Systems, Inc. (Tri-State). The permits were revoked on the basis that the signs were found not to comport with the requirements of Section 479.01(10)(d), Florida Statutes (1977), which recently has been reinterpreted by DOT.
Both below and on appeal, Tri-State argued equitable estoppel, asserting that it had relied on assurances from Henderson Signs and DOT that the permits were valid before purchasing the permits from Henderson Signs. The hearing officer ruled that Tri-State failed to prove the first element of estoppel — that DOT made a representation of material fact contrary to a later-asserted position — on the basis of his finding that the testimony of Tri-State’s witnesses was “self-serving without some form of corroboration, and ... not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact.” The identical issue, under virtually identical facts involving the same parties, has been resolved by this court in Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 500 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). On the authority of Tri-State, we reverse.
REVERSED.
ZEHMER, J., and J. LEWIS HALL, Jr., Associate Judge, concur. WENTWORTH, J., agrees to conclusion only.
PER CURIAM.
Appellee has pointed out in its motion for rehearing that, even though this court has found one element of equitable estoppel to have been shown, there are no findings relative to the other elements of estoppel, namely reliance and, if any, damages. Accordingly, this cause is remanded for such a determination of said issues.
WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ„ and J. LEWIS HALL, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tri-State Sys., Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp., 500 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)