CITY OF HIALEAH, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN W. ALLMAND AND JOHN ALLMAND BOATS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 City of Hialeah appealed a trial court judgment that estopped it from interfering with completion of an industrial plant for which it had previously issued a building permit. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the city was estopped from blocking the appellee's work despite claiming a ministerial act by its public works director was insufficient grounds for estoppel.
The court affirmed the trial judgment, holding that the City of Hialeah was estopped from interfering with the completion of the industrial plant. The issuance of the building permit provided sufficient grounds for invoking estoppel, and the ministerial nature of the public works director's act did not defeat the estoppel doctrine.
“a ministerial act of its public works director is not a sufficient ground upon which to evoke the doctrine of estoppel against the City”
Statement of the City's argument on appeal, which the court rejected
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Hialeah issued a building permit to John W. Allmand and John Allmand Boats, Inc. for construction of an industrial plant. The City subsequ…
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 Occupational License cases and more on FLexlaw
The City of Hialeah has appealed a final judgment directing it to permit the completion of an industrial plant according to plans submitted by appellee, John W. Allmand and John Allmand Boats, Inc. The City had previously issued a building permit to appellees and the trial judge held that the City was estopped from interference with the progress of the work.1 We affirm.
*10The appellant, City, assigns as error the entry of the final judgment and urges, under its point presented upon appeal that a ministerial act of its public works director is not a sufficient ground upon which to evoke the doctrine of estoppel against the City. The judgment of the trial court is sustained under the holdings in the following cases: Texas Co. v. Town of Miami Springs, Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 808; Bregar v. Britton, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 753; Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 433; City of Gainesville v. Bishop, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 100.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 286 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…create new conditions after those created by the first resolution had been met. We think that this proposition is fully supported in the law. See Texas Co. v. Town of Miami Springs, Fla.1950, 44 So. 2d 808; City of Hialeah v. Allmand, Fla.App.1968, 207 So. 2d 9; City of Gainesville v. Bishop, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 100. Affirmed.…
-
City OF Miami v. The 20TH Century Club, Inc., 313 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…that the city is equitably estopped to deny it a building permit citing three cases. Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.1963, 151 So. 2d 433; City of Gainesville v. Bishop, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 100; City of Hialeah v. Allmand, Fla.App. 1968, 207 So. 2d 9; see also, City of North Miami v. Margulies, Fla.App.1974, 289 So. 2d 424. We hold that the city’s resolution created a vested right of “conditional use” zoning for the appellee and that the appellee had a right to rely on the existing zoning in se…
-
1302 Corp. v. Vill. of Palm Springs, 37 Fla. Supp. 92 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1972)…h they are entitled to protection, and the building permit cannot be revoked in the absence of fraud or deceit or other fault on the part of the applicant. See Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables, 151 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1963); City of Hialeah v. Allmand, 207 So. 2d 9 (Third DCA 1968); and Hough v. Amato, 212 So. 2d 662 (First DCA 1968). The court therefore finds that defendants are equitably estopped from interfering with the plaintiffs’ right to develop their property under the zoning ordinance of village of Pa…
Authorities Cited
- Sakolsky v. The City OF Coral Gables, 151 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1963)
- Tex. Co. v. Town of Miami Springs, 44 So.2d 808 (Fla. 1950)
- City OF Gainesville v. Bishop, 174 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Bregar v. Britton, 75 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1954)