EUGENE B. PIRTLE, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF TITUSVILLE AND NORTH BREVARD COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT BOARD, 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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision that dismissed a plaintiff's suit seeking a declaratory decree and cancellation of a deed. The court found the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to show any injury distinct from that of the general public.
No, the plaintiff failed to show any interest or injury different from that sustained by the public generally.
“The decree dismissed the suit and granted defendants damage on an injunction bond which had been filed by the plaintiff.”
Describes the outcome of the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEugene B. Pirtle sued the City of Titusville and a hospital district board, seeking a declaratory decree regarding a deed of dedication and cancellati…
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 Cancellation Of Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree in an action brought by Eugene B. Pirtle against the City of Titusville and North Brevard County Hospital District Board in which plaintiff sought a- declaratory decree as to a certain deed of dedication and sought to have another deed cancelled. The decree dismissed the suit and granted defendants damage on an injunction bond which had been filed by the plaintiff. The Circuit Judge dismissed the complaint and in his order found that there was no showing in the -complaint nor in the proof that there would be any injury resulting to the plaintiff different in kind from that sustained by the public generally, nor that the action sought to be enjoined would result in any increase in taxes or any special injury to the plaintiff.
We are of the opinion that upon the rec- ' ord presented there was no showing of interest in the plaintiff different from the public generally. Therefore, we affirm the lower court upon the authority of the following cases: Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152, 74 So. 205; Metropolis Pub. Co. v. City of Miami, 100 Fla. 784, 129 So. 913; Lykes Bros., Inc., v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, Fla., 41 So.2d 898; Bryan v. City of Miami, Fla., 56 So.2d 924, 926; Town of Flagler Beach v. Green, Fla., 83 So.2d 598.
Affirmed.
KANNER, C. J., ALLEN and SHANNON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Oise Keton, 115 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1959)…the general fund of the city to benefit the public. The following cases are relied on to support this contention: Jacksonville v. Wilson, 1946, 157 Fla. 838, 27 So. 2d 108; Bryan v. Miami, Fla.1951, 56 So. 2d 924; Pirtle v. Titusville, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 397; Holton & Co. v. Hull, 1939, 140 Fla. 687, 192 So. 229, 3 A.L.R.2d 1321 and 1377 note; Manning v. Clark, Fla.1951, 56 So. 2d 521; Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 551, and Gladman v. Hallam, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 46. We think…
-
Ashe v. City OF Boca Raton, 133 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…not properly within the compass of the Declaratory Judgments Act. These principles are well settled. See Ready v. Safeway Rock Co., 1946, 157 Fla. 27, 24 So. 2d 808; May v. Holley, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 636; Pirtle v. City of Titusville, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 397; Guernsey v. Haley, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 184; Colby v. Colby, Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 797; 52 Am.Jur., Taxpayers’ Actions, Section 3. It is noteworthy that the City of Boca Raton obtained the land in question from the federal authority without…
-
Guernsey v. Haley, 107 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…tiffs failed to allege any factual basis to support their right to institute the suit below, we shall reverse the lower court with instructions to dismiss the complaint filed in this cause. In the case of Pirtle v. City of Titusville, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 397, decided March 21, 1958, this court held that the appellant, Pirtle, had no right to file a complaint against the City of Titusville and the North Brevard County Hospital District Board to have certain deeds cancelled because of the lack of authorit…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152 (Fla. 1917)
- The Metropolis Publ'g Co. v. City of Miami, 100 Fla. 784 (Fla. 1930)
- Lykes Bros. v. Bd of Com'rs of Everglades Dr. Dist, 41 So.2d 898 (Fla. 1949)
- Bryan v. City of Miami, 56 So.2d 924 (Fla. 1951)
- Hettie B. Gammill v. Rhoden, 83 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1955)
- Town OF Flagler Beach v. Green, 83 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1955)