VLASTIMIL KOUBEK ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HUBERT CAULFIELD ET AL., APPELLEES; HUBERT CAULFIELD, APPELLANT, V. VLASTIMIL KOUBEK ET AL., 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 court held that the city had the authority to acquire downtown property and enter into a contract for a parking facility, and that the expenditure of public funds was constitutional.
Plaintiff challenged the city's authority to acquire property and contract for a parking facility, alleging constitutional violations. The trial court…
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 Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal comes here by virtue of a decree of the Circuit Court holding certain acts valid and constitutional.
The Circuit Judge held the Statute valid and otherwise resolved the equities against plaintiff.
Thereupon the two defendants took this appeal, complaining that the Court should have gone further and enjoined plaintiff from filing another suit. We find no merit in this contention.
Cross-assignments of error by the original plaintiff question the city’s authority to acquire downtown property in the City of St. Petersburg and enter into a longtime contract for construction and operation of a downtown parking facility.
In our judgment this decree is correct and should be approved. It seems to us that this lengthy litigation should be ended. We must assume that the city officials acted in good faith in trying to solve a traffic problem which had reached major proportions. The Circuit Judge was nearer the scene than this Court and on *418the equities we are unable to substitute our judgment for his.
The cross-assignments of error in essence claim that the expenditure of public money to acquire the land, erect the complex and lease same would violate § 5, § 7, and § 10 of Article IX, Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
The trial court found the city had authority to enter into this undertaking under General Statute, F.S. 183.03, F.S.A., and also under Special Act, Chapter 57-1801. The trial court also held the above statutes valid and constitutional.
We find the decree free of error and affirm same.
Affirmed.
CALDWELL, C. J., THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., and SPECTOR, District Court Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baycol, Inc. v. Downtown Dev. Auth. OF the City OF Fort Lauderdale, 315 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1975)…2d 653 (Fla.1953), we approved the use of bond proceeds to construct off-street parking facilities. The fact that a gasoline filling station would be leased to a private enterprise on the premises did not defeat the project. In Koubek v. Caulfield, 213 So. 2d 417 (Fla.1968), this Court held that the City of St. Petersburg had the authority to expend public money to acquire downtown property and to enter into a long-term contract for the erection and lease of a parking facility thereon. [*461] Clearly, a muni…
-
Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 844 (M.D. Fla. 2007)…arlier drafts of the Option made reference to the transaction being a "joint project” does not change the Court's analysis; it is the form and substance of the arrangement that controls, not its name. 34 . See also Koubek v. Caulfield, 213 So.2d 417 (Fla.1968)(city had authority to spend public money to acquire downtown property and to enter into a long term contract for the erection and lease of a parking facility thereon without contravening the Florida constitution); Sunny Isles Fishing P…