STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 Florida Supreme Court upheld the City of North Miami Beach's authority to issue water and sewer revenue bonds without first obtaining a permit from the Dade County Board of County Commissioners. The Court held that while the Home Rule Charter vests regulatory power in the County Board, this power is not self-executing and does not limit municipal authority unless the Board affirmatively exercises it.
No. The Court held that the Home Rule Charter provision vesting power in the County Board is not self-executing. The County Board's power to regulate or permit does not impair municipal authority under their charters or state law unless the Board affirmatively exercises that power in accordance with the Constitution and laws.
“The provision of the Home Rule Charter vesting this power in the Board of County Commissioners is not self-operating.”
Establishes the central legal principle that Charter grants of power to the County Board do not automatically limit municipal authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of North Miami Beach issued $2,909,000 in water revenue bonds and $5,445,000 in sewer revenue bonds. The circuit court validated these bonds …
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 Governmental Powers cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida appeals from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County validating $2,909,000 water revenue bonds and $5,445,000 sewer revenue bonds of the City of North Miami Beach, Florida.1
Thirteen errors were assigned but the only question presented for decision by ap*765pellant is whether the power vested in the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida under Art. 1, Sec. 1.01A (9) of the Home Rule Charter 2 to provide and regulate or permit municipalities to provide and regulate a sewerage and water supply system precludes the appellee City from issuing the subject bonds without first obtaining a permit from such Board of County Commissioners to purchase and operate such water supply and sewage disposal system, a part of which lies outside the corporate limits. The State argues that the opinion of this Court in State v. City of Miami3 is not determinative of this question because the project involved in that case to use the State’s language “did not seek to bring in new unincorporated areas” but related solely to the issuance of bonds pledging revenues from the water system within the City of Miami.
There is no merit in the State’s contention. The provision of the Home Rule Charter vesting this power in the Board of County Commissioners is not self-operating.4 It vests in the Board the power to regulate or permit the municipalities within Dade County to provide and regulate waste and sewer collection and disposal and water supply programs but, as we pointed out in State v. City of Miami, supra, “such power has no effect until exercised in accordance with the Constitution and laws.” Until the Board of County Commissioners properly exercises the power which it has but which it is not required to exercise, the power of the municipalities within Dade County under their respective charters or the applicable general laws of this State with regard to water supply and sewerage disposal systems is unimpaired.
Appellee City presents nine points for our determination and argues them at length. There was no cross-appeal and inasmuch as none of said points were argued by appellant and none present any jurisdictional or fundamental error apparent in the record on appeal we decline to notice them.5
Affirmed.
TERRELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Williams, 198 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1967)…These assignments do not involve fundamental error or capital punishment. See Rule 3.7(i), F.A.R.; Rule 6.16(b) F.A.R., 31 F.S.A.; Compare F.S. 924.32 F.S.A.; Anglin v. Mayo (Fla. 1956), 88 So. 2d 918; State v. City of North Miami Beach (Fla.1959), 108 So. 2d 764; City of Miami v. Steckloff (Fla.1959), 111 So. 2d 446; Roberts v. State (Fla.1966), 181 So. 2d 646. Accordingly, that part of the opinion holding inadmissible the testimony of the witness Oliver is expunged, and without considering the other assig…
-
State v. Sunny Isles Reclamation & Water Control Bd., 204 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed, under the authority of State v. City of Miami, Fla., 103 So. 2d 185, and State v. City of North Miami Beach, Fla., 108 So. 2d 764. ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.…
-
Magnum Constr. Mgmt. Corp. v. The City OF Miami Beach, 209 So. 3d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…d, the City unilaterally decided to remove the playground in its entirety. The City has not cross-appealed these findings in the trial court’s verdict, and any objection to them on appeal has accordingly been waived. State v. City of N. Miami Beach, 108 So. 2d 764, 765 (Fla. 1959); Philip J. Padavano, Florida Appellate Practice § 8:10 at 173 (2016 ed.) (“Although an appellate court may affirm an order based on a point not made by the appellee or respondent, the court will not reverse an order based on a point…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miami Shores Vill. v. Faris N. Cowart, 108 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- State v. The City OF Miami, 103 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1958)
- State v. Alsop, 120 Fla. 628 (Fla. 1935)