CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GERALD A. HERMAN 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 City of Miami Beach appealed a permanent injunction preventing it from placing a rent control ordinance question on a March 8, 1977 ballot. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that the city violated its charter's requirement of a 60-day waiting period between petition certification and election and that the initiative petitions failed to fully set forth the proposed ordinance as required.
The court held that the 60-day waiting period requirement was not met and that the initiative petitions were invalid because they failed to fully set forth the text of the rent control ordinance as required by Section 26 of the Miami Beach City Charter.
[1] A city charter provision requiring a minimum 60-day period between the certification of initiative petitions and the date of an election must be strictly followed.
[2] Initiative petitions are invalid if they fail to fully set forth the subject matter of the measure to be enacted as required by the governing charter.
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“Section 26 of the City's Charter clearly provides a minimum 60-day period between certification of the petitions and the date of the election.”
Establishes the charter requirement at the center of the court's analysis and rationale for affirming the injunction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 7, 1977, the city clerk received petitions requesting a rent control ordinance. The city council on January 19 passed a resolution to submi…
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 Taxpayer Standing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The City of Miami Beach appeals a permanent injunction enjoining the City from including question # 5 relative to the rent control ordinance on the ballot of the March 8, 1977 special election.
On January 7,1977 the city clerk received petitions calling upon the city council to adopt or submit to the City’s electorate a measure amending and re-enacting rent control ordinance # 74-2018 which expired December 31, 1976 for an additional two years. At a meeting on January 19 the city council passed a resolution to submit the measure to the electorate as an initiative (pursuant to Section 26 of the Charter of the City of Miami Beach) by placing question # 5 on the ballot of an already scheduled special election for March 8 provided that 10% of the voters signed initiative petitions at least 30 days before the election (February 8). This condition was satisfied.
On or about February 15, 1977 plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking to enjoin the City from placing the rent control ordinance (question # 5) on the March 8 ballot on the grounds that (1) Section 26 of the City Charter requires the instant measure to be submitted to the electorate at least 60 days after the filing of the petitions asking for the submission, and (2) the proposed measure was not fully set forth in the petitions as required by Section 26 in that it does not fully set forth the text of ordinance # 74-2018.
After several hearings the trial court granted the permanent injunction based on the following:
* * * * * *
“2. The election procedure which is the subject matter of this litigation is sanctioned by and comes within the initiative provisions of § 26 of the City of Miami Beach Charter. “3. The Dade County Elections Supervisor certified to the City that petitions containing 6,473 signatures of qualified electors were filed with the City Clerk by January 28,1977. There are 59,561 registered voters on Miami Beach eligible to vote in the March 8, 1977 special election.
“4. The initiative procedure that is to be followed when less than fifteen percent of the qualified voters execute the initiative petitions provides that the initiative election shall not take place until at least sixty days subsequent to the filing of the petition or petitions.
“5. The language of" the initiative petition does not fully set forth in said petition the rent control ordinance sought to be enacted.
“6. The initiative petition is scheduled to be placed on the ballot as part of a special election set for March 8, 1977.-
“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“1. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this complaint because they are taxpayers and property owners in the City of Miami Beach seeking to enjoin an election alleged to be proeedurally and substantively illegal.
“2. Inclusion of the rent control question presented by the initiative petition as part of the special election to be held March 8,1977 is illegal because sixty days would not have elapsed since a sufficient number of signatures of qualified electors were filed.
“3. The initiative petitions are themselves invalid because they do not fully set forth the subject matter of the measure as required by § 26 of the City Charter.”
The City appeals therefrom. We affirm.
Section 26 of the City’s Charter clearly provides a minimum 60-day period between certification of the petitions and the date of the election. This requirement was not met and the trial judge was correct in enjoining the City from placing the subject rent control measure on the March 8 ballot. See Tacker v. Board of County Commissioners of Polk County, 127 Fla. 248, 170 So. 458 (1936).
We also agree with the judge’s finding that the petitions are invalid for failure to set forth the rent control ordinance to be enacted as required by Section 26 of the Miami Beach City Charter. Order granting permanent injunction is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. Dade Cnty., 369 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ons. There is no issue, for example, as to the propriety of the form of the initiative petition, the manner in which it was circulated, nor of the validity or sufficiency of the numbers of voters who signed it. Compare City of Miami Beach v. Herman, 346 So. 2d 122 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). Nor does this case involve a [*1004] finding that the proposal was in any way unconstitutional, as was true in both Adams v. Gunter, 238 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1970), and Duval County v. Jennings, 121 Fla. 584, 164 So. 356 (1935); see Da…
-
Paulino Nunez v. City OF Hialeah & David Leahy, 477 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…er under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enjoin the scheduled election on a proposed City of Hialeah charter amendment, see State ex rel. Landis v. Tedder, 106 Fla. 140, 143 So. 148 (1932); City of Miami Beach v. Herman, 346 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), because, as in the identical and controlling case of City of Miami v. Rolle, 446 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the city did not comply with the time frame required by § 5.03A of the Dade County Home Rule Charter. No motion fo…
-
Rivergate Rest. Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 369 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…(Fla.3d DCA 1957). Limited exceptions to this rule have been recognized but only on the narrowest of grounds. One such exception is where the election is being held in violation of an applicable legislative enactment. City of Miami Beach v. Herman, 346 So. 2d 122 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). Another is where the ballot question on a referendum is misleading and deprives the voter of an opportunity to know and to be on notice as to the proposition on which he is to cast his vote. Hill v. Milander, 72 So. 2d 796 (Fla.19…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tacker v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Polk Cnty., 127 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1936)
- Tacker v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 126 Fla. 15 (Fla. 1936)