WILMA S. JONES ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CREATED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
The conflict herein for issuance of the writ of certiorari is delineated in the related opinion filed this date of Ball v. City of Tallahassee, 281 So.2d 333 (Fla.1973). There we recite the rule of proof to which we adhere as it appears in our earlier cases of Canal Authority v. Miller, 243 So.2d 131 (Fla.1970); Canal Authority v. Litzel, 243 So.2d 135 (Fla.1970); and Wilton v. St. Johns County, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527 (1929).
Applying the Canal Authority rule of proof for a showing of necessity of taking by the condemning authority, to the facts in this particular case, we find that the trial court, as affirmed by the district court of appeal upon the facts, was well within the rule in its determination and judgment which we find to be correct.
The opinion of the district court, 266 So.2d 382, is hereby modified to conform to the rule of proof as set forth in Ball v. City of Tallahassee, supra, and the writ of certiorari is otherwise
Denied.
CARLTON, C. J., McCAIN, J., and GALE, Circuit Judge, concur.
ERVIN, J., concurs in the conclusion discharging the writ.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Broida, 362 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ipal authority, in this case the Miami Beach City Council. See City of Miami Beach v. Hogan, 63 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1953); Jones v. City of Tallahassee, 266 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972), overruled on other grounds, 281 So. 2d 333 (Fla.1973), modified 281 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1973). In Jones v. City of Tallahassee, supra, the First District Court of Appeal, citing Rott v. City of Miami Beach, 94 So. 2d 168, 173 (Fla.1957), held that the findings by a city on the question of necessity in eminent domain proceedings ca…
-
Rawls v. Leon Cnty., 974 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ee Sibley v. Volusia County, 147 Fla. 256, 2 So. 2d 578 (1941). A determination concerning the necessity for the taking of property is initially a legislative function. See Jones v. City of Tallahassee, 266 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972), modified, 281 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1973). It is for this reason that once a reasonable necessity is demonstrated, the exercise of that discretion by the condemning authority may not be disturbed in the “absence of bad faith or gross abuse of discretion.” See Canal Auth., 243 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Wilton v. Cnty. of St. Johns, 98 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1928)
- The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1970)
- The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Litzel, 243 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1970)
- Ball v. City OF Tallahassee, 281 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1973)
- Jones v. City OF Tallahassee, 266 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)