CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
v.
STATE, EX REL. CARY D. LANDIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND C. M. RAVLIN, A FEME SOLE
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 South Miami appealed a quo warranto judgment ousting it from jurisdiction over 40 acres of rural land within its municipal boundaries. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's determination that the land was not benefited by municipal inclusion and that taxation of the property without corresponding municipal benefits violated the property owners' constitutional rights.
The court affirmed that the 40 acres of rural land were beyond the range of municipal benefits and that the city's inclusion of the property within municipal limits and subjection of it to municipal taxation constituted an invasion of the property owners' constitutional property rights, which are guaranteed by the state constitution.
“its inclusion within the limits of the municipality and its subjection to municipal taxation constituted an invasion of the basic property rights of the co-relator, which are guaranteed by the Constitution”
Establishes the constitutional basis for the court's ruling that taxation without municipal benefits violates property rights
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 South Miami contained approximately 2,000 acres within its boundaries. The disputed 40 acres were of a rural character located within the …
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 Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal in this case was taken from a judgment of ouster rendered in a quo warranto proceeding *126by which the municipality, plaintiff in error here, which contained within its boundaries some two thousand acres of land, was ousted from municipal jurisdiction of forty acres of land, of rural character, which the court below held was beyond the range of municipal benefits, and that its inclusion within the limits of the municipality and its subjection to municipal taxation constituted an invasion of the basic property rights of the co-relator, which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Upon the trial of the court below the plaintiff in error endeavored to show that these lands were benefited by inclusion within the municipal limits and also endeavored to show that the co-relator was estopped from raising any question of usurpation of municipal authority by acquiescence for an unreasonable length of time.
. The determination of these two issues depended upon the testimony in the case which was taken before the Circuit Judge. We are not able to say that his conclusions from the testimony are clearly erroneous. The case has been ably briefed and orally argued by counsel for both sides, and many interesting questions ‘discussed, but after all the decision of the case turns upon what construction should be placed upon the testimony. The parties waived trial by jury and the case was tried and submitted to the Court for determination of all . question of law and fact. No useful purpose would be subserved in summarizing or analyzing such testimony in this opinion.
Our conclusion is that we would not be authorized to disturb the conclusion of the lower court on the facts as represented by the judgment rendered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.