-
137 So. 2d 849·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1962-02-02
·cited 16×
Mayflower Property, Inc. challenged the City of Fort Lauderdale's zoning of its waterfront property as R-1 single family, arguing it should be rezoned R-3 multiple family for hotels and apartments. The court held that the Board of Adjustment lacked jurisdiction to grant the reque
-
154 Fla. 383·
Fla.·
1944-04-25
·cited 14×
Ward & Ward law firm sought a quantum meruit fee for legal services rendered in a zoning ordinance case for the Fordes after the original fee agreement became impractical due to intervention by third parties and the Fordes' inability to pay. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the
-
343 So. 2d 103·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1977-03-11
·cited 12×
Appellant, a property owner and Zoning Board member, challenged Jacksonville's denial of his request to rezone his corner lot from residential to the least intensive commercial (CPO) classification. The trial court rejected his application despite uncontradicted evidence that the
-
153 So. 2d 64·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1963-04-24
·cited 12×
Hillsborough County appealed a trial court decision invalidating an R-2 residential zoning classification applied to property intended for a mobile home village. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the zoning ordinance was arbitrary and unreasonable because it had no subst
-
143 So. 2d 54·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1962-06-19
·cited 12×
A zoning ordinance restricting waterfront property to single-family residential use is void and unconstitutional when changed circumstances, established by prior court decisions on adjacent properties and expert testimony, demonstrate the property is unsuitable for single-family
-
267 So. 2d 100·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1972-09-19
·cited 10×
Jefferson National Bank challenged Miami Beach's comprehensive zoning ordinance, claiming it was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to the bank's property in a residential district. The court upheld the ordinance, holding that municipalities may exempt themselves from
-
469 F.2d 956·
1st Cir.·
1972-11-24
·cited 9×
The court held that while the six-acre minimum lot size requirement was crudely implemented and potentially temporary, it was permissible under the current circumstances to preserve the town's character and environment.
-
71 So. 2d 725·
Fla.·
1953-12-11
·cited 9×
The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari challenging an order overruling motions to strike and dismiss a zoning challenge. The court held that whether zoning restrictions on the respondents' property should be removed depends on whether the adjacent lots (6, 7,
-
271 So. 2d 24·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1972-12-19
·cited 4×
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the appellant's complaint with prejudice and in presenting alternatives to the city, as the current zoning classification was confiscatory and inconsistent with private ownership.
-
358 So. 2d 564·
Fla. 3d DCA·
1978-04-25
·cited 2×
The City of Miami Beach appeals from a trial court order declaring its PUD-1 zoning classification of appellee's property arbitrary and unconstitutional, and ordering rezoning to permit professional office use. The appellate court reverses, finding that the PUD-1 classification w
-
37 Fla. Supp. 92·
Fla. Cir. Ct.·
1972-06-27
Developers who obtained a building permit for a condominium project challenged a municipality's subsequent rezoning of their property and revocation of their permit. The court granted equitable estoppel relief, finding that the developers had materially changed their position in
-
3 Fla. Supp. 206·
Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.·
1953-01-03
Property owners challenged Miami Beach zoning ordinance No. 289 that restricted their oceanfront lots to single-family residential use, arguing changed circumstances since 1930 made the restriction arbitrary and confiscatory. The court found the zoning invalid as applied to their