CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FARLS COWART, EDWIN L. MASON, JOHN B. MCLEOD, RALPH FOSSEY AND CHARLES HALL, AS MEMBERS OF AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Miami Beach appealed a circuit court decision upholding the constitutional validity of Dade County's Home Rule Charter provisions and ordinances enacted thereunder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Charter's metropolitan government structure validly applied county-wide, not just in unincorporated areas, and that the ordinances addressed subjects susceptible to uniform area-wide regulation.
The court affirmed that the Home Rule Charter provisions and ordinances were valid under the Florida Constitution. The court rejected the contention that the metropolitan government could operate only in unincorporated areas. The ordinances validly addressed municipal functions and services susceptible to uniform county-wide regulation.
“the ordinances in question dealt with subjects that "are not purely local in nature, but are susceptible to area-wide regulation, therefore, the ordinances are valid."”
The trial court's rationale for upholding the ordinances, which the appellate court adopted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Board of County Commissioners of Dade County enacted ordinances pursuant to the county's Home Rule Charter under § 11 of art. VIII of the Florida …
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.
This is an appeal from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Dade County upholding the validity, under § 11 of art. VIII, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., of certain provisions of the Home Rule Charter of Dade County and various ordinances enacted by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County pursuant to such Charter authority. The decree in question relied upon the decision of this court in Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, Fla.1958, 108 So.2d 468, in support of its conclusion that the Charter provisions under attack did not contravene § 11 of art. VIII, supra, and found that the ordinances in question dealt with subjects that “are not purely local in nature, but are susceptible to area-wide regulation, therefore, the ordinances are valid.”'
We find no error in the decree brought here for review. Most of the legal points argued here by appellants were expressly answered by this court in its decision in the Miami Shores Village case, supra, and no useful purpose would be served in reiterating them here. The novel contention that the Home Rule Amendment, § 11 of art. VIII, supra, authorized the metropolitan *433government of Dade County to function and operate only in the unincorporated areas of Dade County is untenable for reasons so obvious as to make discussion thereof unnecessary. And we agree with the trial court that the particular ordinances here attacked dealt with municipal functions or services that “are susceptible to, and could be most effectively carried on under, a uniform plan of regulation applicable to the county as a whole.” Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, supra [108 So. 2d 471],
Accordingly, the decree here reviewed should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, DREW, THORNAL and O’CON-NELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Boyd v. Cnty. OF Dade, 123 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1960)…having final appellate jurisdiction. . Ibid, note 7. . State v. Furen, Fla.1960, 118 So. 2d 6. . Insofar as the traffic ordinance is concerned, see Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, Fla.1958, 108 So. 2d 468; City of Miami Beach v. Cowart, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 432. As to the Metropolitan Courts see City of Miami v. Keton, Fla.1959, 115 So. 2d 547. . 1894, 34 Fla. 504, 16 So. 398. . 1924, 87 Fla. 181, 100 So. 260, 264. . This argment was premised on the provisions of Section 19 of the Bill of Bights of the…
-
City OF Miami v. Benitez, 116 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…say that the Supreme Court of Florida has already answered these contentions adverse to the petitioner. See Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, supra, and City of Miami v. Keton, Fla.1959, 115 So. 2d 547, 551 and City of Miami Beach v. Cowaft, Fla.1959, 116 So. 2d 432. Of special significance here is the recent expression of the Supreme Court of Florida in City of Miami v. Keton, supra, where the court, in considering the ordinances setting the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Court and repealing county and muni…
-
City OF Coral Gables v. Burgin, 143 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1962)…conditions for the issuance of a municipal license except the payment of the customary fee.” (Italics supplied.) It was the court’s ultimate decision that the point at issue was settled by the opinion of this court in City of Miami Beach v. Cowart, 116 So. 2d 432. It is the idea of the petitioner, Coral Gables, that the cause was certified to this court because of Sec. 5.02 of the Metropolitan Charter, providing that every municipality was allowed to exercise all powers relating to “local affairs not incons…
Previewing 3 of 14 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)