CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
A. J. CUMMINGS AND SADIE BELK CUMMINGS, HIS WIFE, 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 Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Circuit Court's decision dismissing the City's condemnation petition based on equitable principles of good faith did not warrant direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court transferred the case to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, for proper review.
The Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction because the Circuit Court based its decision on equitable principles rather than on a construction of the federal or state constitution, and did not pass upon the validity of a state statute. Proper jurisdiction resides in the District Court of Appeal, Third District.
[1] Appeals directly to the supreme court are limited to cases involving the validity or construction of state or federal statutes or constitutions.
[2] A case based on equitable principles, such as good faith, does not fall within the direct appeal jurisdiction of the supreme court.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appeals from trial courts may be taken directly to the supreme court, as a matter of right, only . . . from final judgments or decrees directly passing upon the validity of a state statute or a federal statute or treaty, or construing a controlling provision of the Florida or federal constitution.”
Establishes the constitutional limitation on the Florida Supreme Court's appellate 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 Miami Beach sought to condemn property owned by A. J. Cummings and Sadie Belk Cummings. In an earlier condemnation proceeding for the same…
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 Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review by this Court of a Circuit Court’s Summary Judgment entered in Appellees’ favor dismissing Appellant’s condemnation petition on the ground the action could not be brought since Appellant had not acted in good faith when it failed to pay the awards given Appellees in earlier condemnation proceedings for the same property.
Article V, Section 4(2) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., provides in part:
“Appeals from trial courts may be taken directly to the supreme court, as a matter of right, only . . . from final judgments or decrees directly passing upon the validity of a state statute or a federal statute or treaty, or construing a controlling provision of the Florida or federal constitution. . . .”
The Circuit Court in this case based its decision on equitable principles (good faith) rather than on a construction of either the federal of state constitutions, and it did not pass upon the validity of a state statute. Accordingly, this appeal was improvidently lodged here.
Proper jurisdiction of the cause is in the District Court of Appeal, Third District. That court, in an earlier appeal arising out of one of the numerous condemnation proceedings seeking to condemn the same lands sought to be condemned in this action, may have established a controlling precedent applicable here when it concluded the first condemnation proceeding was null and void for failure to comply with the requirements of F.S. Section 73.111, F.S.A., by paying the amount awarded as value by a jury. It then indicated a new condemnation proceeding could be commenced after an original one became null and void for failure to pay or tender the condemnation award, citing F.S. Section 73.111, F.S.A., once the proper eminent domain procedures were complied with. City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, Fla.App. 970, 233 So.2d 842.
This appeal having been improvidently taken to this Court, all papers, including the notice of appeal, shall be transferred to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, within five days from the date of en*17try of this Order. Rule 2.1(a) (5) (d), F. A.R., 32 F.S.A.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Cummings, 266 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…HENDRY, Judge. These consolidated appeals were originally lodged in the Florida Supreme Court which transferred them to this court for disposition, 257 So. 2d 15. The appeals concern questions which arose out of the appellant’s fourth attempt to acquire appel-lees’ property for park purposes by eminent domain proceedings. For additional facts and pertinent holdings by this court relating to the proceedings,…
-
Hildebrandt v. Dep't OF Natural Res. Div. OF Interior Res., 309 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1975)…granted and the above-styled cause is hereby transferred to the District Court of Appeal, Third District. See Harrell’s Candy Kitchen v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, 111 So. 2d 439 (Fla.1959); also see City of Miami Beach v. Cummings et al., 257 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1971); “ . . . This appeal having been improvidently taken to this Court, all papers, including the notice of appeal, shall be transferred to the District Court of Appeal, Third District, within five days from the date of entry of this Order.…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami Beach v. Cummings, 233 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)