MACLOU CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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 denied a petition for certiorari, affirming a conviction for violating a city ordinance. The court found that the ordinance, similar to New York law, was properly applied and supported by the evidence.
Yes, the Circuit Court properly affirmed the conviction. The court found an adequate basis in the evidence to sustain the Circuit Judge's conclusion and that the law was properly applied.
“A careful examination of the record leads us to the conclusion that the Circuit Judge in the exercise of his powers as an appellate court had an adequate basis in the evidence as a whole to sustain his conclusion and he properly applied the law applicable in affirming the Municipal Court.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision, emphasizing the sufficiency of evidence and correct application of law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaclou Corp. was convicted in the Municipal Court of Miami Beach for violating a city ordinance. The Circuit Court affirmed this conviction. The ordin…
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 Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for certiorari the petitioner seeks reversal of an order of the Circuit Court affirming conviction of the petitioner in the Municipal Court of the City of Miami Beach.
The particular ordinance alleged to have been violated apparently was copied after Section 435-b of the Penal Law of the State of New York, McK.Consol.Laws, c. 40. The decisions of the New York courts are, therefore, especially applicable. Several New York cases involving substantially similar facts sustain the conviction of the petitioner by the Miami Beach Municipal Court. See People v. Leder, 258 App.Div. 879, 16 N.Y.S.2d 291; People v. Lewis, 138 App.Div. 673, 122 N.Y.S. 1025; People on Complaint of Waller v. Branfman, 147 Misc. 290, 263 N.Y.S. 629.
A careful examination of the record leads us to the conclusion that the Circuit Judge in the exercise of his powers as an appellate court had an adequate basis in the evidence as a whole to sustain his conclusion and he properly applied the law applicable in affirming the Municipal Court.
The petition is, therefore, denied.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
By petition for rehearing our attention is invited to the fact that in the original opinion we made reference to Section 435-a of the Penal Law of the State of New York. The correct reference is and should be Section 435-b of the Penal Law of the State of New York. The original opinion has been corrected accordingly. The authorities cited, however, are equally applicable to the case at bar, and the petition for rehearing is therefore
Denied.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.