ALEJANDRO D. BENABE-RIVERA
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 affirmed that aluminum can-recycling and can-crushing operations constitute a use specifically listed under zoning district C-3 ("packing of soft metal material") rather than a permitted use under the C-2 General Commercial District classification, and therefore the stop-work order was properly issued.
[1] A zoning ordinance's use of the conjunction "and" to connect multiple listed uses within a single classification does not require all listed uses to be present simultaneo…
[2] The "packing of soft metal material" is a use specifically permitted in a C-3 Highway Commercial District, not a C-2 General Commercial District.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“”
Core holding distinguishing C-3 from C-2 permissible uses
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Gorman and Scallan operated a recycling center at a C-2 zoned property with an occupational permit for "Retail Dealer (waste paper, etc.)."…
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 Frivolous Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment(s) and sentence(s) in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 2011-CF-005070, this Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we
conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings. Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning the above referenced case. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018); Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and SASSO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Isley v. State, 652 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Simpkins v. State, 909 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)