THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES, AND VINCENT D. WYMAN, ET AL., AS COUNCILMEN OF SAID CITY,
v.
STATE, EX REL. CARY D. LANDIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND M. R. BENNETT, J. T. OWNBY AND ANDREW SOLOKOR
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 affirmed a judgment of ouster against the City of Coral Gables, removing the city's jurisdiction over wild, unimproved lands that were improperly annexed pursuant to a 1929 legislative act. The court held that the legislative act violated the Florida Constitution and infringed on property owners' rights by subjecting unbenefited lands to municipal jurisdiction.
The judgment of ouster was affirmed. The legislative act was ineffective to include the lands described in the ouster judgment because they were unbenefited and violated the state constitution and property owners' rights. The exclusion of the small strip of land from the judgment was not grounds for reversal, as the city would have no valid jurisdiction over it either.
“the lands within said area are wild and unimproved and unoccupied and are unbenefited by being subject to the jurisdiction of said defendant corporation”
Establishes the factual basis for the ouster judgment—that the annexed lands provided no benefit to justify municipal jurisdiction
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 Coral Gables annexed certain lands under Chapter 1372 of the 1929 Florida Legislature. These lands were wild, unimproved, unoccupied, and …
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 Municipal Annexation cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error in this case brings for review a judgment of ouster in the Circuit Court of Dade County wherein it was held:
“That Chapter 1372, Acts of the Legislature of the State of Florida of 1929, approved May 8th, 1929, insofar as the same relates to the lands and territory attempted to be annexed to and embraced within the corporate limits of the defendant City of Coral Gables, a municipal corporation, violate the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Florida and is in violation of the property rights of all the *18owners of lands situated within the area described in said Amended Information; in that the lands within said area are wild and unimproved and unoccupied and are unbenefited by being subject to the jurisdiction of said defendant corporation, and that said defendant corporation and the officers thereof, since the passage and taking effect of said Act, have unlawfully usurped and exercised the privileges, powers and franchises of a municipality in, upon, and over all of said lands, contrary to the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, and that said defendant City of Coral Gables and the officers thereof should be ousted therefrom.”
And, thereupon, judgment of ouster followed as to certain lands described in the judgment.
It is contended here that the judgment of ouster was erroneously entered because the record does not warrant die findings of the Circuit Judge, and because there were certain lands included within the boundaries fixed by the legislative Act mentioned in the findings which lay beyond those lands as to which the judgment of ouster applied and which would be entirely segregated from the municipality by the ouster of the jurisdiction of the city over the lands described in the judgment.
The record shows that there is a small strip of land lying beyond the lands involved which was not included in the judgment, but we do not think this is ground for reversal of the judgment because if the. Act of the Legislature was ineffective to include the lands described in the judgment of ouster, then it was likewise ineffective to include those lands lying beyond the lands described in the judgment of ouster and it necessarily follows that the city would have no right to exercise jurisdiction over that strip of land lying beyond the lands described in the judgment of ouster. Otherwise, the judgment should be affirmed on authority of State, ex *19 rel. Landis, Attorney General, et al., v. Town of Lake Placid, a Municipal Corporation, etc., in which opinion was filed at this Term of the Court, and upon authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases of State, ex rel. Davis, Attorney General, v. Town of Lake Placid, 109 Fla. 419, 147 Sou. 468; State, ex rel. Landis, Attorney General, et al., v. Town of Lake Placid, 117 Fla. 874, 158 Sou. 497; State, ex rel. Attorney General, et al., v. City of Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641, 149 Sou. 409; State, ex rel. Davis, Attorney General, v. City of Largo, 110 Fla. 21, 149 Sou. 420.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Davis, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City OF Cape Coral, 272 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1973)…The Court further finds that to order an ouster of some of the lands would create an hiatus, leaving certain acreage completely surrounded by other lands not ousted. The case of the City of Coral Gables, et al v. State ex rel. Landis, Atty., et al. [122 Fla. 17], 164 So. 535 indicates that this problem should not affect the rights of the Plaintiffs herein where it is so obviously an infringement upon the property rights of an individual, and this Court finds that to allow these lands to remain in the corpo…
Authorities Cited
- State v. The City of Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. The City of Largo, 110 Fla. 21 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. Town of Lake Placid, 109 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. Town of Lake Placid, 117 Fla. 874 (Fla. 1935)