RANCHO SANTA FE, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, 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 court denied certiorari because, although the lower court applied the wrong standard of review, it reached the correct result in upholding the denial of the rezoning application.
Property owners sought rezoning, which was denied by the Dade County Commission. The Circuit Court, Appellate Division, denied their application for r…
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 Tipsy Coachman Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Property owners seek certiorari review of a decision of the Circuit Court, Appellate Division, denying their application for rezoning. We deny the petition.
Although the Circuit Court applied the wrong standard of review when it upheld the decision of the Dade County Commission that denied the rezoning application, it reached the correct result. See In Re Yohn’s Estate, 238 So. 2d 290, 295 (Fla.1970) (“If the lower court assigns an erroneous reason for its decision the decision will be affirmed where there is some other different reason or basis to support it.”)1
The Circuit Court should have applied the standard set forth in Board of County Comm’rs v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1993) — whether substantial competent evidence supported the Commission’s resolution. Instead, the Circuit Court based its ruling upon the following quotation from Lee County v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. Party nership, 619 So. 2d 996, 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993): “Where any of several zoning classifications is consistent with the plan, the applicant seeking a change from one to the other is not entitled to judicial relief absent proof the status quo is no longer reasonable.”
However, because the result reached by the Appellate Division was correct, we deny certiorari.
Certiorari denied.
. This legal maxim is often referred to as the "Tipsy Coachman” rule. See Carraway v. Armour & Co., 156 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1963).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osten v. City OF Homestead, 757 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…h this count was erroneously dismissed for the lack of statutory notice under section 768.28, we nevertheless affirm its dismissal where it failed to otherwise state a cause of action against the City. See Rancho Santa Fe, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, 709 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We therefore affirm the order of dismissal with prejudice in its entirety. Affirmed. . That statute provides that: No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such emplo…
-
Triana v. Fi-Shock, Inc., 763 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…tating that “even though a trial court’s ruling is based on improper reasoning, the ruling will be upheld if there is any theory or principle of law in the record which would support the ruling”). See also Rancho Santa Fe, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, 709 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(denying certiorari where trial court applied the wrong standard of review but reached the correct result) (citing In Re Estate of Yohn, 238 So. 2d 290, 295 (Fla.1970)). Because we find that the trial court correctly declined to gi…
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)
- In re Est. of Carl Sylvester Yohn, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1970)
- Carraway v. Armour & Co. & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 156 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1963)
- LEE Cnty. v. Sunbelt Equities, II, 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 619 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)