Zoning Ordinances

446 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Sederquist v. City OF Tiburon
  765 F.2d 756· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-31 ·cited 11×
  The denial of a permit to pave a private driveway does not constitute a taking of property without just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Fountain v. City OF Jacksonville
  447 So. 2d 353· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-03-08 ·cited 11×
  The Fountains challenged Jacksonville's Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) ordinance that restricted residential development near Cecil Field naval air station. The court reversed the lower court's partial invalidation, holding the entire ordinance void because the city
• Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc. v. City OF Cleburne
  726 F.2d 191· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the zoning ordinance excluding group homes for the mentally retarded violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the mentally retarded constitute a quasi-suspect class requiring intermediate scrutiny, and the ordinance fails to sub
• J.W. v. City OF Tacoma
  720 F.2d 1126· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-25 ·cited 11×
  A municipal zoning ordinance that imposes special disabilities on residences for former mental patients must receive heightened judicial scrutiny and cannot be applied arbitrarily.
• Pinellas Cnty. v. Brown
  420 So. 2d 308· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-07-07 ·cited 11×
  Pinellas County denied a building permit to landowners Brown and Hughes for a use permitted by the existing zoning ordinance, citing a conflict with the county's comprehensive land use plan. The court reversed a damages judgment, holding that the county's temporary denial of the
• S. A. Lynch Inv. Corp. v. City OF Miami
  151 So. 2d 858· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-04-16 ·cited 11×
  A downtown Miami hotel owner challenged a zoning variance granted to developers for a 30-story mixed-use building on adjacent property, claiming it would damage its property value and operations. The court held that the owner lacked standing because the alleged injuries were comm
• Johnson v. Vill. OF Va. Gardens
  107 So. 2d 34· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-11-18 ·cited 11×
  The appellate court affirmed a summary final decree for the defendant village, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a license for on-premises liquor consumption despite operating a pre-existing nonconforming package store. The court found a valid ordinance prohibited su
• City of Hollywood v. Rix
  52 So.2d 135· Fla.· 1951-04-20 ·cited 11×
  The Supreme Court of Florida held that a city zoning ordinance was invalid because it was enacted without the required public notice and hearing. The court found that the state legislature had not granted the city the authority to bypass these procedural requirements.
• Smithfield Concerned Citizens FOR Fair Zoning v. The Town OF Smithfield
  907 F.2d 239· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-02 ·cited 10×
  A facial substantive due process challenge to a zoning ordinance is ripe for review upon enactment, and such an ordinance will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective.
• DeSisto Coll., Inc. v. Town of Howey-In-The-Hills
  706 F. Supp. 1479· M.D. Fla.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 10×
  The court found that the undisputed facts supported summary judgment, as the town's zoning actions were not based on irrational prejudice but on legitimate concerns about the intensive use of residential property by the college.
• Town OF BAY Harbor Islands v. Driggs
  522 So. 2d 912· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-03-08 ·cited 10×
  The Town of Bay Harbor Islands appealed a trial court judgment invalidating a parking restriction ordinance on both procedural and substantive grounds. The appellate court reversed, holding that the ordinance was not substantively unconstitutional and that the appellee lacked sta
• Function Junction, Inc. v. City of Daytona Beach
  705 F. Supp. 544· M.D. Fla.· 1988-01-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Daytona Beach Zoning Ordinance No. 81-292 is a constitutional time, place, and manner restriction on adult theaters, serving a substantial governmental interest in combating urban blight and promoting redevelopment, and allowing for ample alternative channels
• Adultworld Bookstore dba Reliable Enters., Inc. v. The City OF Fresno
  758 F.2d 1348· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining under Younger v. Harris, as the plaintiff had not violated the ordinance before filing suit and the circumstances did not present a 'race to the courthouse' scenario. The court also found that the plaintiff had shown seri
• Pinellas Cnty. v. Ashley
  464 So. 2d 176· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-02-01 ·cited 10×
  Pinellas County appeals from a judgment finding it liable for inverse condemnation after it denied a landowner's building permit application due to a conflict between the property's zoning classification and the county's comprehensive land use plan. The court reverses, holding th
• Caleb Stowe Assocs., Ltd. v. Cnty. OF Albemarle
  724 F.2d 1079· 4th Cir.· 1984-01-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that abstention was required because the plaintiffs' federal claims depended on the construction of state land use law, which should be decided by state courts first.
• The City OF Coral Gables v. Wepman
  418 So. 2d 339· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-08-03 ·cited 10×
  The City of Coral Gables enacted two successive zoning ordinances targeting only the Goulds' property, imposing height and density restrictions significantly more restrictive than those applied to surrounding, similarly-situated properties. The trial court found both ordinances u
• City OF Gainesville v. GNV Invs., Inc.
  413 So. 2d 770· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-03-15 ·cited 10×
  No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that federal courts were without jurisdiction to entertain Lyons' claim for injunctive relief. The fact that Lyons had been choked once did nothing to establish "a real and immediate threat that he would again be stopped. . .by an officer
• Burns v. City OF DES Peres
  534 F.2d 103· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants' denial of his rezoning request was arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and thus did not violate his constitutional right
• Am. Mini Theatres, Inc. v. Gribbs
  518 F.2d 1014· 6th Cir.· 1975-06-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Detroit ordinance's 1000-foot provision, which restricts the concentration of adult businesses, is a permissible time, place, and manner regulation that does not violate the First Amendment or Equal Protection Clause.
• Ybarra v. City OF SAN Jose
  503 F.2d 1041· 9th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that dismissing the action for failure to state a claim was improper, as the complaint alleged racial discrimination in zoning and land use that could lead to segregated schools.
• The City OF Hallandale v. State of Fla. ex rel. Sage Corp.
  298 So. 2d 437· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the petitioner because the petitioner failed to conclusively refute the respondent's affirmative defenses.
• City OF Miami v. Woolin
  387 F.2d 893· 5th Cir.· 1968-01-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the zoning ordinance's distance restrictions, as applied to appellees' property, were unconstitutional.
• Mosher v. Beirne
  357 F.2d 638· 8th Cir.· 1966-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a plaintiff operating a business in violation of valid zoning and licensing ordinances cannot claim deprivation of civil rights, even if the mayor was involved in enforcing those ordinances.
• LA Salle Nat'l Bank v. 222 E. Chestnut St. Corp.
  267 F.2d 247· 7th Cir.· 1959-05-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the dismissal of a prior malicious prosecution complaint for failure to allege special interference was not a determination on the merits, thus not barring the current suit by res judicata. However, the claim based on the Federal Court Injunction Suit was corr
• State ex rel. Holland et. al. v. City OF EAU Gallie
  65 So. 2d 877· Fla.· 1953-06-16 ·cited 10×
  Appellants sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City of Eau Gallie to issue them a license to operate a trailer park, challenging an ordinance prohibiting trailer parks except in non-residential areas as unconstitutionally vague. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of
• Ehinger v. State
  147 Fla. 129· Fla.· 1941-05-20 ·cited 10×
  A zoning ordinance, when its application completely deprives an owner of the beneficial use of their property, is unreasonable, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.
• Payne v. City OF Miami
  52 So. 3d 707· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-12-08 ·cited 9×
  The Court reversed an administrative decision approving a small-scale Future Land Use Map amendment for a residential high-rise development on Miami River waterfront property zoned for water-dependent industrial uses, finding that the amendment violated the City's Comprehensive P
• 11126 Baltimore Boulevard v. Prince George's Cnty.
  886 F.2d 1415· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the county's adult bookstore zoning regulations, as applied, were content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions supported by substantial evidence and thus constitutional.
• David v. City OF Dunedin
  473 So. 2d 304· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-08-07 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the sign ordinance was not adopted in accordance with applicable statutes, rendering it void and requiring the trial court to issue an injunction against its enforcement.
• Ferris J. Alexander v. City OF Minneapolis
  698 F.2d 936· 8th Cir.· 1983-01-28 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Minneapolis zoning ordinance, which significantly restricted access to adult bookstores and theaters, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Cont'l Con-Dev Co. & Con-Dev of Vero Beach, Inc. v. Gustavus A. Shallberg, Jr.
  267 So. 2d 40· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-09-26 ·cited 9×
  Continental Con-Dev and the City of Vero Beach appealed an interlocutory order denying their motions for judgment on the pleadings in a suit challenging a building permit allegedly violating zoning setback requirements. The court held that while a property owner facing a zoning v
• Leatha M. Fleeman v. Vocelle
  160 Fla. 898· Fla.· 1948-10-19 ·cited 9×
  Fleeman sought declaratory judgment challenging the State Beverage Director's refusal to allow her to serve alcoholic beverages in portions of her restaurant building located outside city limits but within 2500 feet of a school. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, h
• Allen v. Bowman
  152 Fla. 325· Fla.· 1943-01-26 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the seller failed to provide a marketable title as required by the contract because deed restrictions were not removed or rendered ineffective as a matter of record.
• Snedigar v. Yocum
  131 Fla. 191· Fla.· 1938-02-21 ·cited 9×
  This case involves an appeal from a decree enjoining city officials from enforcing a zoning ordinance that restricted property use. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the ordinance unreasonable and confiscatory as applied to the property.
• Thai Meditation Ass'n of Ala., Inc. v. City of Mobile
  83 F.4th 922· 11th Cir.· 2023-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper on the RLUIPA claim due to factual disputes, proper on the Free Exercise claim, and that the City failed to meet strict scrutiny on the ARFA claim.
• Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville
  973 F. Supp. 1428· M.D. Fla.· 1997-08-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the city's ordinances, while regulating adult entertainment, did not violate procedural due process and provided sufficient alternative avenues for communication. The court also found that nude dancing is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
• Specialty Malls of Tampa v. City of Tampa
  916 F. Supp. 1222· M.D. Fla.· 1996-02-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims and, alternatively, that the claims failed on the merits, entitling the defendants to summary judgment.
• Baldwin v. Nature's Hideaway
  613 So. 2d 1376· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-02-19 ·cited 8×
  The court concurred in the result of a case concerning deed restrictions and shared residential facilities for the elderly, with a special concurrence questioning the necessity of enforcing deed restrictions that exclude facilities protected by state law.
• Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon Cnty.
  796 F. Supp. 1477· N.D. Fla.· 1992-06-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that claims alleging the denial of all economically viable use of land are not ripe until the landowner seeks approval for development under current regulations and is denied. Claims for just compensation are also not ripe until state remedies are exhausted.
• S. Ent. Co. v. City of Boynton Beach
  736 F. Supp. 1094· S.D. Fla.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the ordinance was void because the city failed to comply with state statutory notice requirements for its enactment, despite the ordinance otherwise being a valid time, place, and manner regulation under the First Amendment.
• Messiah Baptist Church v. The Cnty. OF Jefferson
  859 F.2d 820· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 8×
  The dissent argues that zoning regulations prohibiting or unduly restricting places of worship on private property violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, speech, and assembly rights.
• Horizon Concepts, Inc. v. City OF Balch Springs
  789 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the city's zoning ordinance regulating modular home construction is constitutional on its face and as applied to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's failure to appear before the zoning commission justified the denial of permits.
• City OF Boynton Beach v. V.S.H. Realty, Inc.
  443 So. 2d 452· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-01-11 ·cited 8×
  The City of Boynton Beach appealed a declaratory judgment ordering it to approve a revised site plan for commercial development. The court held that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction through declaratory judgment rather than certiorari, but erred in finding that City
• Huntington Branch v. The Town OF Huntington
  689 F.2d 391· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the zoning ordinance, even in the absence of immediate federal funding, because the invalidation of the ordinance could tangibly improve their chances of securing future financing and constructing the housing project.
• Cent. Ave. News, Inc. v. The City OF Minot
  651 F.2d 565· 8th Cir.· 1981-06-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court correctly applied the Younger abstention doctrine, dismissing the federal complaint without prejudice because the appellant could raise its constitutional claims in the pending state court enforcement proceeding.
• Grendel's DEN, Inc. v. Goodwin
  662 F.2d 88· 1st Cir.· 1981-04-07 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge believes the statute unconstitutionally confers governmental power on religious institutions, violating the Establishment Clause.
• The Park View Heights Corp. v. The City OF Black Jack
  605 F.2d 1033· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that intervening economic factors do not relieve defendants of liability for Fair Housing Act violations, and the district court erred in denying equitable relief based on the unforeseeability of increased costs.
• Cnty. OF Pasco v. J. Dico, Inc.
  343 So. 2d 83· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-03-04 ·cited 8×
  A party cannot contest the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance based on alleged errors in the zoning of property they do not own.
• Fortune v. Mulherrin
  533 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1976-04-09 ·cited 8×
  Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court civil proceedings, and claims are barred by judicial immunity or lack merit.
• ART Neon Co. v. The City & Cnty. OF Denver
  488 F.2d 118· 10th Cir.· 1973-11-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Denver's ordinance requiring termination of nonconforming signs over a reasonable period, including a five-year maximum, is a valid exercise of police power, but the categorization of termination periods based on replacement cost is unreasonable.