KAREN'S TACK, INC., RICHARD J. LUDWIG AND LISA J. LUDWIG, D/B/A KAREN'S CIGARS & ACCESSORIES, GRIFFIN PAWN & CHECK CASHING, INC., H.I.J. ASSOCIATES, INC., V.I.P. DRY CLEANERS, INC., LEIGH POTTER-WESSEL, D/B/A MIRACLE WORKERS GROOMING AND D/B/A MIRACLE-MYST MAINE COON CATS, ROBERT VAN TOORN D/B/A B & G ENTERPRISES, ABC TYPESETTING & PRINTING, INC., J.W. HILTON, D.V.M., P.A., AND SUPER STOP FOODS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SHIRLEY GREENBAUM, ALLAN FISHMAN, BENAY FISHMAN, PEOPLE'S TELEPHONE COMPANY, PETER V. BALASKY D/B/A GRIFFIN ANIMAL HOSPITAL, TOWN OF DAVIE, BROWARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, APPELLEES
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 a quick take order for an entire shopping center under Florida Statutes section 337.27(2), holding that the statute permits acquisition of an entire parcel when the cost equals or is less than acquiring only the needed portion, and distinguished the case from a similar pending matter because no factual dispute existed here regarding comparative acquisition costs.
A quick take of an entire shopping center is proper under section 337.27(2), Florida Statutes, when the trial court finds the cost of acquiring the whole parcel is equal to or less than acquiring only the portion needed.
[1] Section 337.27(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department of Transportation to acquire an entire parcel of land in a quick take proceeding even when only a portion i…
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 intelligenceTenants in a shopping center appealed an order granting a quick take of the entire shopping center by the Department of Transportation, claiming their…
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 Expert Testimony Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants are the tenants in a shopping center who appeal an order granting a “quick take” of the entire shopping center pursuant to section 337.27(2), Florida Statutes (1997). That statute authorizes the appellee DOT to acquire an entire parcel of land, even though it does not need the entire parcel, if the acquisition cost would be equal to or less than acquiring a portion of the property. Appellants assert that they are in a position analogous to the defendants in State, Department of Transportation v. Barbara’s Creative Jewelry, Inc., 728 So. 2d 240, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and that because we certified a question of great public importance in that ease to the Florida Supreme Court, we should not decide this case until that case is decided.
This case is distinguishable from Barbara’s Creative Jewelry, because in that case there was a factual dispute at the quick take hearing as to whether the cost of acquiring a portion of the parcel exceeded the cost of acquiring the whole parcel. No such issue exists in the present case because the only expert testimony found to be admissible by the trial court was presented by the DOT. The trial court concluded that the opinion of the appellants’ expert was inadmissible and did not consider it. There was, accordingly, no issue of fact in this case, as there was in Barbara’s Creative Jewelry, and the resolution of that case will not change the result in this case. We find no error and affirm.
WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Barbara's Creative Jewelry, Inc., 728 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)