Zoning Ordinances

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

• Marks v. City OF Chesapeake
  883 F.2d 308· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the City Council's denial of a conditional use permit based on public religious objections, rather than legitimate zoning concerns, was arbitrary and capricious, violating due process.
• ATS Melbourne, Inc. v. City OF Melbourne
  475 So. 2d 1257· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-08-15 ·cited 4×
  ATS Melbourne, Inc., operating a topless bar (The Doll House IV) in violation of local zoning ordinances, appeals a temporary injunction prohibiting its operation. The court affirms, holding that the city's zoning ordinance is facially valid and that the business lacks standing t
• Town OF Longboat KEY v. Mezrah
  467 So. 2d 488· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The Town of Longboat Key appealed a trial court judgment requiring it to allow a property owner to proceed with multi-family construction under an R-2 zoning variance that the town had rescinded. The court affirmed, holding that the town was equitably estopped from denying the de
• Cinema Arts, Inc. v. The Cnty. OF Clark & the Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Clark Cnty.
  722 F.2d 579· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, as the requirements for Pullman abstention were not met.
• Pompa Constr. Corp. v. City OF Saratoga Springs
  706 F.2d 418· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the zoning ordinance did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because it substantially advanced legitimate state interests and allowed for economically viable uses of the property.
• United States v. City OF Parma
  669 F.2d 1100· 6th Cir.· 1981-12-10 ·cited 4×
• Amdur v. City OF Chicago
  638 F.2d 37· 7th Cir.· 1980-12-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the mere enactment of a zoning ordinance limiting building size does not constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment, absent a showing that it prevents the best use of the land or extinguishes a fundamental ownership attribute.
• Context Dev. Co. v. Dade Cnty.
  374 So. 2d 1143· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-09-18 ·cited 4×
  Context Development Company challenged a cease and desist order prohibiting rock plowing and agricultural operations on 8,100 acres in Taylor Slough, an ecologically sensitive area. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's dismissal and denial of certiorari
• Krestow v. Wooster
  360 So. 2d 32· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-06-13 ·cited 4×
  Architect Victor Krestow appealed a jury verdict in favor of defendants Wooster, Russell, and their firm in a professional malpractice and breach of contract action. The court affirmed, holding that an architect satisfies its duty of due care by reasonably relying on the client's
• Fla. E. Coast Props., Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  572 F.2d 1108· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the construction and operation of a jail/work-release facility adjacent to private property, which caused a diminution in market value, did not constitute a taking without just compensation or a nuisance, absent physical intrusion or interference with property
• The Trs. OF Mortg. Tr. OF Am. v. Holland
  554 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a local ordinance limiting liquor sales to specific business zones, based on the presence of residences, is not arbitrary or irrational and does not violate due process or equal protection.
• Trushin v. City OF Miami Beach
  328 So. 2d 27· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-02-24 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the declaration of the building as a public nuisance and the order for its demolition.
• Harrison v. Ind. Auto Shredders Co.
  528 F.2d 1107· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge agrees that punitive damages were an abuse of discretion but would modify the injunction to allow for potential continued operation under supervision.
• Trachsel v. The City OF Tamarac
  311 So. 2d 137· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-03-14 ·cited 4×
  Property owners challenged a city's rezoning of their commercial land from C-1 to more restrictive B-1 classification under a new comprehensive zoning ordinance, arguing the rezoning was unconstitutional and arbitrary. The court affirmed, holding that changed circumstances are no
• United States v. O'Connell
  496 F.2d 1329· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that New York law governs the determination of implied easements in FHA foreclosure sales and that sufficient unity of interest among corporations dominated by the same individual may support an implied easement, even if the conveyance was involuntary.
• S. Gwinnett Venture v. W. R. (Dudge) Pruitt
  482 F.2d 389· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-04 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint, finding that they were afforded procedural due process and failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• City OF ST. Paul v. Chicago
  413 F.2d 762· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-06 ·cited 4×
  A zoning ordinance restricting building heights is a valid exercise of police power if reasonably related to public welfare, even if it depreciates property values or serves aesthetic purposes.
• Harlem, Jr., Inc. v. Mount Sinai Baptist Church
  100 So. 2d 437· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-02-11 ·cited 4×
  Harlem, Jr., Inc. appeals a decree invalidating an emergency ordinance that would have allowed it to relocate its retail liquor license to a location within 300 feet of Mount Sinai Baptist Church. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the variance granted by
• Kaeslin v. Adams
  97 So. 2d 461· Fla.· 1957-06-26 ·cited 4×
• West v. Bank of Commerce & Trs.
  153 F.2d 566· 4th Cir.· 1946-02-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment because the case did not present an "actual controversy" as required by the Federal Declaratory Judgment Statute.
• The City of W. Palm Beach, Inc. v. Haver
  330 So. 3d 860· Fla.· 2021-09-30 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that private property owners cannot obtain an injunction compelling a city to enforce its zoning ordinance against a third party's alleged violations. The Court clarified its precedent in Boucher v. Novotny and rejected the Fourth District's expansi
• At & T Wireless Servs. of Fla., Inc. v. Orange Cnty.
  23 F. Supp. 2d 1355· M.D. Fla.· 1998-02-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the county's denial of a special exception and variance for a cell tower was supported by substantial evidence under state law and did not violate the Telecommunications Act.
• Town OF Deerfield v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States
  992 F.2d 420· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-27 ·cited 3×
  The FCC order preempting Deerfield's zoning ordinance is reversed because the FCC cannot disregard prior federal and state court judgments that already decided the preemption issue between the same parties.
• Bannum, Inc. v. City OF Louisville
  958 F.2d 1354· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 3×
  The plaintiff's claim is not ripe for adjudication because it failed to obtain a final decision from the relevant authorities regarding its proposed use of the property, nor did it utilize available procedures for obtaining necessary permits or variances.
• Redner v. City of Tampa
  723 F. Supp. 1448· M.D. Fla.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that abstention was appropriate, recommending dismissal or a stay of the federal action pending the outcome of parallel state court proceedings.
• E.W. Holland and W.L. Holland v. Walker
  492 So. 2d 1093· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-07-09 ·cited 3×
  Property owners appealed a tax assessment of $765,000 on their 51-acre unimproved property in West Palm Beach, arguing the valuation was excessive and based improperly on comprehensive land use plan designations rather than existing zoning. The Fourth District Court of Appeal aff
• City OF Miami Beach v. Miller
  140 So. 2d 317· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-04-17 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision enjoining the City of Miami Beach from enforcing its single-family zoning ordinance. The lower court found the ordinance arbitrary and confiscatory due to a significant change in the neighborhood's character and activities.
• City OF N. Miami v. Amos Benjamin
  128 So. 2d 753· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-04-17 ·cited 3×
  The City of North Miami appeals a post-decree order finding its proposed zoning ordinance insufficient to comply with a final decree requiring the city to rezone property to a use for which it was reasonably adapted. The court affirmed, holding that the ordinance was clearly inad
• Wheeler v. Lautz
  160 Fla. 826· Fla.· 1948-07-30 ·cited 3×
• Daoud v. City OF Miami Beach
  150 Fla. 395· Fla.· 1942-04-14 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Supreme Court granted a writ of habeas corpus to A. Joseph Daoud, who was convicted under Miami Beach ordinances that the Court found unconstitutional and violated his non-conforming use rights under the original zoning ordinance. The Court held that Daoud, having lea
• S. Fla. Equitable Fund LLC v. City of Miami
  770 F. Supp. 2d 1269· S.D. Fla.· 2011-03-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that SFEF's claims were not ripe for judicial review because SFEF failed to obtain a final decision from the City Commission and did not demonstrate hardship. The court also found the claims moot due to the enactment of a new zoning ordinance.
• P.M. Realty & Invs., Inc. v. City OF Tampa & Gloria Moreda
  863 So. 2d 1269· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-01-23 ·cited 2×
  P.M. Realty appeals a permanent injunction against its adult use business in Ybor City, which the trial court granted based on the 'law of the case' doctrine from a prior preliminary injunction ruling. The court reverses, holding that a preliminary injunction does not establish b
• Konikov v. Orange Cnty.
  302 F. Supp. 2d 1328· M.D. Fla.· 2004-01-02 ·cited 2×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the county's zoning ordinance, as applied to the plaintiff's religious activities, did not violate his free exercise rights.
• Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Orange Cnty.
  780 So. 2d 198· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-02-02 ·cited 2×
  Costco challenged Orange County's ordinance requiring a 5,000-foot separation between package stores as an unconstitutional exercise of police power that lacked substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The court reversed the trial court's upholding of the or
• Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale
  996 F. Supp. 1230· S.D. Fla.· 1997-04-11 ·cited 2×
  The court granted summary judgment for the City, finding Bannum's equal protection and substantive due process claims lacked merit because the City's denial of a special use permit was rationally related to legitimate government interests.
• N. Fla. Educ. Dev. Corp. v. Woodham
  942 F. Supp. 542· N.D. Fla.· 1996-05-20 ·cited 2×
  Plaintiff Ford lacked standing to bring the claims, and the remaining plaintiff, NFEDC, failed to state claims for substantive or procedural due process violations.
• Consol. Pre-Stressed Concrete, Inc. v. Cnty. OF Volusia
  633 So. 2d 541· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-03-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the temporary injunction was improperly granted with respect to the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 88-3, as it was not an issue raised by the County.
• ST. Johns Cnty. v. LIL' Champ, Inc.
  623 So. 2d 873· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-09-24 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, holding that the lower court's reversal of a zoning commission's order denying Lil' Champ's permit application was not subject to certiorari review under the narrow standard applicable to such cases.
• Everett v. City of Tallahassee
  840 F. Supp. 1528· N.D. Fla.· 1993-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City's denial of the plaintiff's rezoning request was not arbitrary or capricious, as it was based on a consistently applied policy regarding non-residential development along Thomasville Road.
• Bullard v. Lake Cnty. Code Enf't Bd.
  620 So. 2d 1041· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a travel trailer is not a permitted dwelling unit in an agriculturally-zoned district, but the storage of travel trailers was improperly prohibited by a broad interpretation of a general ordinance.
• Lakeland Lounge OF Jackson, Inc. v. City OF Jackson
  973 F.2d 1255· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the ordinance was not content-neutral and failed to provide sufficient alternative channels for communication, thus violating the First Amendment.
• Equity Cap. Corp. v. Kreider Transp. Serv.
  967 F.2d 249· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Kreider was not entitled to a reduction in the purchase price due to the Staley contract assignment clause, nor to a new trial based on fraudulent inducement regarding the Markum property.
• Gwynedd Props., Inc. v. Lower Gwynedd Twp.
  970 F.2d 1195· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal adjudication of most of GPI's claims would not interfere with ongoing state proceedings, thus reversing the district court's dismissal on Younger abstention grounds for those claims.
• Morscott, Inc. v. City OF Cleveland
  936 F.2d 271· 6th Cir.· 1991-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a marginal entry denying attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is insufficient without stated reasons, and absent special circumstances, prevailing parties must be awarded fees.
• Thatcher Enters. v. Cache Cnty. Corp.
  902 F.2d 1472· 10th Cir.· 1990-04-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs' claims challenging zoning ordinances were barred by laches or estoppel, and their restraint of trade claims were barred by governmental immunity under the Local Government Antitrust Act.
• McNulty v. Town of Indialantic
  20 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20636· M.D. Fla.· 1989-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the town's ordinances and actions did not constitute a taking of the plaintiff's property without just compensation or due process, as the regulations substantially advanced legitimate state interests and did not deny all economically viable use.
• Burstyn v. City of Miami Beach
  663 F. Supp. 528· S.D. Fla.· 1987-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance provisions limiting ACLF building height and prohibiting ACLFs on certain streets violate the Equal Protection Clause because they are not rationally related to the city's stated goals and appear to be motivated by discriminatory p
• Int'l Food & Bev. Sys. v. City of Fort Lauderdale
  614 F. Supp. 1517· S.D. Fla.· 1985-08-09 ·cited 2×
  City zoning ordinances restricting the location of establishments permitting nudity and serving alcohol are unconstitutional as applied because they are not narrowly tailored and effectively deny reasonable access to constitutionally protected expression.
• Farrell v. City of Miami
  587 F. Supp. 413· S.D. Fla.· 1984-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City of Miami's zoning ordinance, which restricts home occupations based on family residency, is a constitutional exercise of police power and not impermissibly vague as applied to the undisputed facts.
• Hope, Inc. v. The Cnty. OF DuPAGE
  717 F.2d 1061· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the cause of action because they failed to demonstrate a particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendant's actions and redressable by judicial intervention.