LAFY ABDO, PETITIONER,
v.
CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 Florida Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari challenging a District Court of Appeal decision regarding aesthetic restrictions on private property in Daytona Beach. The court found that any apparent conflict between its prior precedents regarding aesthetic considerations in zoning was premature to resolve at the litigation stage.
The court held that any apparent conflict between its prior precedents would not justify exercising jurisdiction because the principle in those cases depended heavily on the character of the territory affected, and that determination of whether the restrictions were justified would depend on the testimony and evidence presented in the case.
“the principle in the three cases first cited was dependent so much upon the character of the territory affected. In other words, conflict would not necessarily arise unless the nature of the territory involved in those three cases was the same as that with which the court dealt in Anderson v. Shackleford, supra, and the area in the present case fell in the same category.”
Establishes the court's basis for declining jurisdiction—that any conflict between precedents depends on territorial characteristics
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved restrictions imposed by the City of Daytona Beach on private property, apparently related to signage and aesthetic considerations. T…
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 General Welfare cases and more on FLexlaw
The petition for writ* of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this court largely because there appeared in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, City of Daytona Beach v. Abdo, Fla.App., 112 So.2d 398, a discussion of the *541decisions of this court relative to the propriety, relevancy and legality of aesthetic considerations in determining whether or not restrictions could be imposed on private property under the police power in the interest of the welfare of the whole people, The City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480, 3 So.2d 364; Merritt v. Peters, Fla., 65 So.2d 861; Dade County v. Gould, Fla., 99 So.2d 236, and the positive statement in the opinion that by the ruling in the first of these this court receded from the decision in Anderson v. Shackleford, 74 Fla. 36, 76 So. 343, L.R.A. 1918A, 139.
Upon scrutiny, however, the court concludes that the apparent conflict will not justify the exercise of jurisdiction here because the principle in the three cases first cited was dependent so much upon the character of the territory affected. In other words, conflict would not necessarily arise unless the nature of the territory involved in those three cases was the same as that with which the court dealt in Anderson v. Shackleford, supra, and the area in the present case fell in the same category.
Whether or not the instant property is so situated as to justify interference with the ownership in order to preserve the aesthetics of the community probably depends on the testimony and evidence in the case.
The District Court of Appeal observed that genuine issues of fact had been presented by respondent’s assertion with reference to the economic dependency of the community upon tourism, and the damage to tourism, hence to the community, by the indiscriminate display of signs. The court concluded that upon the facts relevant to these issues would be determined the true relationship of restrictions to the general welfare.
We conclude that at this point in the litigation a decision of any possible conflict between Anderson v. Shackleford, supra, and the other cited cases, supra, would be premature,
So the writ of certiorari is discharged.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, ROBERTS, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ.f concur.
TAYLOR and WILLIS, Circuit Judges, concur in conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eskind v. City OF Vero Beach, 130 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See City of Daytona Beach v. Abdo, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 398, and Fla., 118 So. 2d 540. ALLEN, C. J., and KANNER and SHANNON, JJ., concur. .…
-
Lafy Abdo v. City OF Daytona Beach, 147 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…en presented to the Supreme Court by the petition for writ of certiorari to review our former decision in the instant case (City of Daytona Beach v. Abdo, supra), which petition the Supreme Court rejected as premature (Abdo v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 So. 2d 540, decided March 2, 1960). In Sunad, the City of Sarasota enacted an ordinance limiting the size of signs in business and industrial districts and placed them in two classifications denominated “point of sale” and “non-point of sale”. In the first cl…1 / 2
-
Eskind v. City OF Vero Beach, 150 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…y appeal. This court, without opinion, affirmed the lower court’s interlocutory order in Eskind v. City of Vero Beach, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 631, on the authority of City of Daytona Beach v. Abdo, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 398, cert. denied, Fla., 118 So. 2d 540. A hearing was then held at which considerable testimony and other evidence were adduced by both parties. The lower court rendered its final decree, here appealed, finding that the ordinance in question was a valid exercise of the police power of a…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- The City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 (Fla. 1941)
- Adler v. Nelly Saffran (Fla. 1914)
- Merritt v. Peters, 65 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1953)
- Anderson v. Shackleford, 74 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1917)
- Dade Cnty. v. Gould, 99 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1957)
- City OF Daytona Beach v. Lafy Abdo, 112 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)