CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF CORAL GABLES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 affirmed an injunction against the City of Miami's Coconut Grove incinerator, holding that evidence of future abatement plans was properly excluded because the facility had already been declared a nuisance.
Once a nuisance has been established and sustained on appeal, evidence of future abatement plans is properly excluded and an injunction against operation is appropriate.
[1] Evidence of a plan to abate a nuisance in the future is properly excluded when the nuisance has already been judicially established and sustained on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami operated an incinerator known as "Old Smokey" in Coconut Grove that had previously been declared a nuisance in an earlier appeal. Fo…
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 Environmental Law cases and more on FLexlaw
This is another chapter in the saga of “Old Smokey”. Following the decision of this court, reported in City of Miami v. City of Coral Gables, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 7, the matter proceeded for further hearing before the chancellor to determine if the City of Miami had corrected the “deleterious condition” at its Coconut Grove incinerator, at which time the trial judge refused to permit the evidence or proffer which related to a plan to abate the nuisance in the future, and permitted the Dade County Pollution Officer to testify as an expert. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge [by his orders] enjoined the operation of “Old Smokey” and reserved jurisdiction to render such further orders as might be proper under the circumstances. This appeal ensued, contending the trial judge erred in issuing the injunction, abused his discretion in declining the evidence and the proffer tendered, and committed error in permitting the expert to testify. We find no error in the orders here under review, and affirm.
The incinerator had already been declared to be a nuisance, which ruling was sustained on appeal. The proposed evidence and proffer did not tend to abate the nuisance, and it was appropriate for the court to deny same. No error has been demonstrated in permitting the expert to testify. Krohne v. Orlando Farming Corporation, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 399; Home Insurance Company v. Wiggins, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 157; Troj v. Smith, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 285.
Therefore, the orders here under review be and the same are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Krohne v. Orlando Farming Corp., 102 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- City OF Miami v. City OF Coral Gables, 233 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- The Home Ins. Co. v. Wiggins, 147 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Troj v. Hampton Smith, 199 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)