PAUL J. CRAWFORD ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HUGHES JOHNSON AND HILDA P. JOHNSON, 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.
A municipality that fails to seek statutory review of a zoning variance decision and refuses to issue the resulting permit may be compelled by mandamus to do so.
A city that obtains a variance from the zoning adjustment board but fails to seek statutory review and refuses to issue the permit may be compelled by mandamus to issue it.
[1] A municipality that refuses to comply with a zoning adjustment board's variance decision and fails to seek statutory review may be compelled by mandamus to issue the resu…
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 intelligence“It also chose not to obey the decision arrived at by the zoning adjustment board. It was therefore properly ordered by the trial court, in this mandamus action, to issue the zoning permit.”
Court explaining why mandamus was the proper remedy when the city refused to comply with the zoning board's variance decision.
The appellees obtained a variance from the zoning adjustment board. The city refused to obey the zoning board's decision and did not seek review in Ci…
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
We are asked to certify to the Supreme Court as a question of great public interest the question whether “a municipality, in the process of enacting changes in a zoning ordinance,” may “maintain the ‘status quo’ by adopting resolutions declaring a moratorium prohibiting the issuance of building permits until the changed zoning ordinance becomes effective.” We decline to do so because in affirming the judgment of the trial court we did not answer the question involved in City of Boynton Beach v. Carroll, Fla.App.4th 1973, 272 So.2d 171. This case hinges on an entirely different question. The appellees in this case sought and obtained a variance from the zoning adjustment board. Thereafter the city had a clear right to seek review of that decision in the Circuit Court pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 176.16 (1971), F.S.A., and chose not to do so. It also chose not to obey the decision arrived at by the zoning adjustment board. It was therefore properly ordered by the trial court, in this man*405damus action, to issue the zoning permit. We affirmed the decision of the trial court because the city did not avail itself of the remedy provided by statute.
The suggestion to have the question certified to the Supreme Court is therefore denied.
MANN, C. J., and LILES and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crawford v. Hughes Johnson and Hilda P. Johnson, 285 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 281 So. 2d 404. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.…
Authorities Cited
- The City OF Boynton Beach v. The Most Reverend Coleman F. Carroll, 272 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)