Zoning Ordinances

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

• United States v. 105.40 Acres OF Land
  471 F.2d 207· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the condemned parcels could not be considered an integral part of the owner's larger tract for valuation purposes.
• Transcon. GAS Pipe Line Corp. v. Hackensack Meadowlands Dev. Comm'n
  464 F.2d 1358· 3d Cir.· 1972-08-02 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Commission's refusal to issue a building permit constituted an unlawful interference with interstate commerce.
• City OF Coral Gables v. Sackett
  253 So. 2d 890· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-09-28 ·cited 8×
  The City of Coral Gables appealed a trial court judgment that enjoined the city's rezoning approval as violating its own zoning code's one-year reconsideration restriction. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the initial February 9 rejection w
• Barefield v. Davis
  251 So. 2d 699· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-08-31 ·cited 8×
  The First District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a lower court's injunction that prohibited the use of land for a trailer park. The court found that the Board of County Commissioners had the authority to alter its regulations at will, and therefore, a later resolution allow
• Univ. Hills, Inc. v. Patton
  427 F.2d 1094· 6th Cir.· 1970-06-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the purchase agreements and options did not contain explicit contractual use restrictions that would bind subsequent purchasers, and that zoning ordinances referenced in a deed were not intended to restrict land use. Therefore, appellants were not bound by the
• Town OF Surfside v. Andrews
  193 So. 2d 207· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The Town of Surfside appealed a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of its zoning ordinance against Nina Jane Andrews, who constructed a second dwelling on a lot smaller than required. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the zoning restriction as applied to Andrews
• McGEE v. City OF Cocoa
  168 So. 2d 766· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-11-20 ·cited 8×
  Neighborhood property owners appealed an order dismissing their complaint seeking to enjoin a city's enforcement of a rezoning ordinance. The court held that the city's rezoning of five lots to C-3 and two lots to C-1 (both more restrictive than requested) did not violate procedu
• Harwick v. Indian Creek Country Club
  142 So. 2d 128· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-06-12 ·cited 8×
  Harwick purchased a lot in an exclusive subdivision with single-family residence restrictions but later discovered a 1944 agreement between some (but not all) owners that would have relaxed the restrictions to permit apartments. He sought rescission claiming material misrepresent
• City OF Birmingham v. Monk
  185 F.2d 859· 5th Cir.· 1950-12-19 ·cited 8×
  Zoning laws that restrict residential occupancy based solely on race violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and such restrictions cannot be justified as a valid exercise of police power.
• Jackson Court Condos., Inc. v. City OF NEW Orleans
  874 F.2d 1070· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 7×
  Summary judgment was inappropriate on Jackson Court's equal protection claim because factual findings were needed to determine if it was similarly situated to other exempted time-shares.
• Crossroads Lounge, Inc. v. The City OF Miami
  195 So. 2d 232· Fla. 3d DCA· 1967-02-07 ·cited 7×
  This case addresses whether a transferee of a liquor license can obtain a zoning variance based on the hardship of the transferor (original licensee) whose property was taken by eminent domain. The court held that a variance requires exceptional hardship unique to the applicant,
• State Bev. Dep't & Thomas E. Lee, Jr.
  149 So. 2d 871· Fla. 1st DCA· 1963-02-12 ·cited 7×
  In this mandamus case, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court judgment that had revoked a liquor license for a store located within 2500 feet of a church. The court held that the statutory distance must be measured from the main entrance of the building where
• Cornerstone Bible Church v. City OF Hastings
  948 F.2d 464· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the City's zoning ordinance, which excluded churches from the central business district, was subject to time, place, and manner analysis and raised disputed issues of material fact regarding its narrow tailoring and underinclusiveness, and also presented equal
• Lockhart v. Darral Kenops
  927 F.2d 1028· 8th Cir.· 1991-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Forest Service's decision to proceed with the land exchange without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not arbitrary and capricious and did not violate NEPA, AIRFA, or the First Amendment.
• Islamic Ctr. OF Miss., Inc. v. City OF Starkville
  840 F.2d 293· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 6×
  The City's denial of an exception to use property for religious worship violated the free exercise of religion clause because the City failed to establish a sufficient secular reason for the denial and did not uniformly enforce its zoning ordinance.
• Molina v. Tradewinds Dev. Corp.
  526 So. 2d 695· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-03-23 ·cited 6×
  Homeowners and their association appealed a trial court's order approving and enforcing a settlement agreement between the City of Boynton Beach and Tradewinds Development Corporation resolving a zoning dispute. The court upheld the order, finding that it did not eliminate the re
• Clifford Y.C. LAI and Victoria L. Lai v. City & Cnty. OF Honolulu
  841 F.2d 301· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Lais' inverse condemnation claim was not ripe because they failed to seek a variance from the zoning ordinance and pursue state compensation procedures.
• Thernes v. City OF Lakeside Park
  779 F.2d 1187· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the ordinance's absolute prohibition of radio antennas, while permitting television antennas, is arbitrary, capricious, and violates equal protection.
• Ebel v. City OF Corona
  767 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the City of Corona's adult-use zoning ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to Helen Ebel's bookstore because it did not provide adequate alternative locations and the amortization period was unreasonable given her investment and lease.
• Hamilton Bank OF Johnson City v. Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n
  729 F.2d 402· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the effects of the defendants' actions did not constitute a taking requiring compensation, and even a temporary deprivation of investment-backed expectations does not establish an entitlement to damages.
• Fort Lauderdale Bd. OF Adjustment & City of Fort Lauderdale v. Nash
  425 So. 2d 578· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-12-22 ·cited 6×
  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court decision that had set aside the Fort Lauderdale Board of Adjustment's denial of a zoning variance for an encroaching structure. The appellate court held that the property owner failed to establish the exceptional hardsh
• Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Reed Thompson
  658 F.2d 555· 8th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the zoning ordinance, which regulated the location of adult theaters but did not ban them entirely, was constitutional both on its face and as applied to Avalon.
• Rebholz v. Picot B. Floyd
  327 So. 2d 806· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-02-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for a writ of mandamus, as the existence of another remedy against a third party does not preclude the issuance of an alternative writ when officials have a clear duty to enforce zoning ordinances.
• Duval Prods., Inc. v. City OF Tampa
  307 So. 2d 493· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-02-07 ·cited 6×
  A Florida property owner sought to rezone a substandard lot from residential (R-3) to commercial (C-1) to construct a billboard, arguing the zoning restriction was unconstitutional. The court affirmed the denial of rezoning, holding that because the property resulted from a conde
• City OF Miami Beach v. State of Fla. ex rel. Philip R. Consolo & Lou Grossman
  279 So. 2d 76· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-05-15 ·cited 6×
  The City of Miami Beach improperly rezoned property from PUD-2 to SR-1 without following mandatory procedural requirements in its own zoning ordinance, including failing to comply with a one-year waiting period after a previous failed rezoning attempt. The court issued a writ of
• O. P. Corp. & Wiggs & Maale Constr. Co., Inc. v. The Vill. OF N. Palm Beach
  278 So. 2d 593· Fla.· 1973-05-10 ·cited 6×
  An ordinance restricting land use to “one-family” dwellings did not involve a procedural disparity, did not deprive any group of a fundamental right, and is rationally related to a permissible government objective. Justice William O. Douglas delivered the opinion of the 7-2 major
• City OF ANN Arbor v. Nw. Park Constr. Corp.
  280 F.2d 212· 6th Cir.· 1960-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the rezoning ordinance was valid because the property owner did not acquire vested rights and the procedural requirements for enactment were met, despite the ordinance being passed less than thirty days after the report request.
• Milling v. Berg
  104 So. 2d 658· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-08-01 ·cited 6×
  Owners of residential and tourist court property sought injunctive relief against a boatyard operator for nuisance caused by operating in violation of local ordinances through noise, smoke, and fumes. The trial court granted a partial injunction restricting the boatyard's hours a
• Town OF Hillsboro Beach v. Weaver
  77 So. 2d 463· Fla.· 1955-01-21 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court, in a dissenting opinion, argued that courts should not interfere with a town's legislative decision to rezone ocean front land from multiple-family to single-family residences, as the town officials acted within their authority.
• Sinclair Ref. Co. v. City of Chicago
  178 F.2d 214· 7th Cir.· 1949-12-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the zoning ordinance was a proper exercise of police power and not arbitrary or unreasonable as applied to the plaintiff's property.
• Daoud v. City of Miami Beach
  145 Fla. 449· Fla.· 1941-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a Miami Beach zoning ordinance amendment that restricted auction sales to the 'BC' business district. The Court held that the reasonableness of the ordinance classification was a mixed question of law
• Nat'l Advertising Co. v. City of Miami
  287 F. Supp. 2d 1349· S.D. Fla.· 2003-09-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that National Advertising Company lacks standing to challenge provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance that restrict noncommercial speech because its interest in noncommercial speech is de minimis (2%).
• Univ. Books & Videos, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  132 F. Supp. 2d 1008· S.D. Fla.· 2001-01-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that Miami-Dade County's zoning ordinance is unconstitutional because it fails to leave open reasonably adequate alternative avenues of communication for adult businesses, violating the First Amendment.
• Univ. Books & Videos, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  33 F. Supp. 2d 1364· S.D. Fla.· 1999-01-19 ·cited 5×
  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim regarding the zoning ordinance's limitations on adult entertainment establishments.
• Taylor Inv., Ltd. v. Upper Darby Twp.
  983 F.2d 1285· 3d Cir.· 1993-01-25 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court held that the plaintiffs' civil rights claims were not ripe for judicial review because they had not allowed the local zoning authorities to reach a final decision on the matter. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to
• T-Marc, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty.
  804 F. Supp. 1500· M.D. Fla.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 5×
  The court held that while most of the challenged ordinance provisions were likely constitutional, certain employee disclosure requirements were overly intrusive and not substantially related to the stated government interests, warranting an injunction.
• First Assembly of God of Naples v. Collier Cnty.
  775 F. Supp. 383· M.D. Fla.· 1991-10-04 ·cited 5×
  The court denied the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment free exercise and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims.
• ABT Corp., Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale
  664 F. Supp. 488· S.D. Fla.· 1987-06-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that it would abstain from deciding an uncertain issue of state law regarding the interpretation of "substantial change" in permitted use categories under Florida Statute § 166.041(3)(c), which could resolve the case and moot federal claims.
• Schafer v. The City OF NEW Orleans
  743 F.2d 1086· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a temporary moratorium on building permits for fast-food restaurants, enacted to allow for a land-use study, did not violate due process or equal protection and was not subject to the same notice requirements as permanent zoning changes.
• Council OF the Lower Keys v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc.
  429 So. 2d 67· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-04-05 ·cited 5×
  Florida's Department of Environmental Regulation is not required to deny or modify an air pollution permit based on non-compliance with local zoning ordinances or land-use restrictions; permit issuance must be based solely on compliance with applicable pollution control standards
• City OF S. Miami v. Shirley Homes, Inc.
  291 So. 2d 40· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-02-12 ·cited 5×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, addressed whether a city zoning ordinance requiring 20% owner consent for variance applications was unconstitutional. The court held that while such provisions can be valid, they are unconscionable and inapplicable when the pr
• Alderman v. James M. Stevens et ux.
  189 So. 2d 168· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-07-27 ·cited 5×
  A Florida appeals court upheld a Circuit Court decision that a municipality was estopped from revoking a validly issued building permit after the property owners had relied on it and incurred substantial expenses in construction. The court reversed only the cost assessment agains
• The City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co.
  146 Fla. 145· Fla.· 1941-02-14 ·cited 5×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's denial of a motion to dismiss and motion for compulsory amendment in a zoning ordinance challenge. The case addresses whether a complainant must disclose the date of property acquisition and provide deed copies as part of the bil
• Cachia v. Islamorada
  542 F.3d 839· 11th Cir.· 2008-09-08 ·cited 4×
  Joseph Cachia challenged Islamorada's zoning ordinance prohibiting formula restaurants on Dormant Commerce Clause grounds after a planned Starbucks sale fell through. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the ordinance's complete prohibition o
• Sarasota Cnty. v. BOW Point ON the Gulf Condo. Developers, LLC
  974 So. 2d 431· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court denied the petition for certiorari, finding the circuit court correctly applied the law regarding the discontinuance of a nonconforming use.
• Jeffrey O. v. City of Boca Raton
  511 F. Supp. 2d 1339· S.D. Fla.· 2007-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the City's Ordinance 4649, which defined and restricted substance abuse treatment facilities, facially discriminated against recovering individuals and violated the Fair Housing Act. The court also found that Section 28-2, limiting occupancy to three unrelated
• Seminole Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Eden Park Vill., Inc.
  699 So. 2d 334· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-09-26 ·cited 4×
  The Florida appellate court grants in part a petition for certiorari challenging a circuit court's decision to quash a county board's denial of a special exception for a residential expansion. While affirming the circuit court's substantive decision and finding no procedural due
• Calhoun v. ST. Bernard Parish
  937 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-01 ·cited 4×
  Police Jurors are entitled to legislative immunity against damages in their individual capacities for actions related to zoning decisions.
• Williams v. City OF Columbia
  906 F.2d 994· 4th Cir.· 1990-06-29 ·cited 4×
  A city zoning ordinance requiring a special exception for radio antennas exceeding seventeen feet is not preempted by federal law and does not violate constitutional rights when reasonably accommodating amateur radio communications.
• J.T. Glisson v. Alachua Cnty.
  558 So. 2d 1030· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of a fee-simple title for Alachua County in an eminent domain proceeding, finding the county had shown reasonable necessity for the taking of property for road and canal maintenance.