GERALD SUTLIFF AND PAUL LOWMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 trial court should reconsider the appellants' complaint and petition in light of prior controlling decisions.
[1] A trial court's dismissal of a complaint and denial of a petition for writ of certiorari may be reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of subsequent controlli…
[2] Appellate courts may consolidate appeals for all appellate purposes when they arise from the same underlying property dispute.
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 intelligenceAppellants sought to enjoin rezoning and compel building permits; the trial court dismissed their complaint and denied certiorari. The property was in…
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 Rezoning cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These appeals are consolidated for all appellate purposes. The appellants filed a complaint in the trial court seeking to enjoin the County Commission from rezoning their property and praying that the County be required to issue building permits to them. The circuit court issued an alternative writ of mandamus and a response was filed thereto. After further proceedings, Jhe circuit court discharged the writ of mandamus. No appeal was taken from that order. Thereafter, the circuit judge, dismissed appellant’s complaint. Subsequently, appellants filed petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court seeking a review of a County Commission resolution which rolled back the zoning on their property. The circuit court denied certiorari and these appeals resulted from the dismissal of the first complaint and the denial of certiorari in the subsequent petition. Each judgment dealt with the same piece of property.
The property involved was one of three parcels considered together by the County Commission. The other two were commonly known as the Pierce and Larkins tracts and were dealt with by this court in Metropolitan Dade County v. Pierce, Fla.App. 1970, 236 So. 2d 202 and Larkins v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App. 1970, 237 So. 2d 343. The County has conceded in oral argument before this court that the same principles apply to the present appeal from the denial of writ of certiorari as applied in Aronovitz v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App. 1974, 290 So. 2d 536 and in Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla.App.3rd 1974, 293 So. 2d 128.
It is not necessary to repeat here the court’s reasoning in the cited cases. It is sufficient to point out that they were not decided at the time that the trial court made the decision in the present case. Therefore, we hold that the instant appeals must be reversed with directions to the trial court to reconsider appellants’ complaint and petition in view of the holdings of this court in Aronovitz v. Metropolitan Dade County, and Hessen v. Metropolitan Dade County, supra.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Farrington v. State, 290 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Pierce, 236 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Larkins v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 237 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Hessen v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 293 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)