From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riverside Homes v. City of Miami

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jan 7, 1964
159 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

Opinion

No. 63-344.

January 7, 1964.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Ray H. Pearson, J.

Duke Laufer, North Miami, for appellant.

John R. Barrett, City Atty., and Edward J. Fitzpatrick, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.


Appellant appeals an adverse final decree upholding the zoning of the appellee municipality upon the "fairly debatable rule". In this connection, see: City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, Fla. 1953, 71 So.2d 148; Village of Virginia Gardens v. Johnson, Fla.App. 1962, 143 So.2d 692.

The chancellor's decree arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Meadows Southern Construction Co. v. Pezzaniti, Fla.App. 1959, 108 So.2d 499; Lynch v. Coppola, Fla.App. 1961, 129 So.2d 183. It was incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: Videon v. Hodge, Fla. 1954, 72 So.2d 396; Frell v. Frell, Fla.App. 1963, 154 So.2d 706. Following an examination of the record, briefs and after oral argument by respective counsel, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the chancellor committed error in the record then before him. Therefore, his actions should be affirmed, without prejudice to the appellant to seek relief from the zoning restrictions on its property in the future, in the event of a change in conditions.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Riverside Homes v. City of Miami

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jan 7, 1964
159 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)
Case details for

Riverside Homes v. City of Miami

Case Details

Full title:RIVERSIDE HOMES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF MIAMI…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jan 7, 1964

Citations

159 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

Citing Cases

Davis v. Situs Incorporated

Ogden v. Groves (Fla.App. 1970), 241 So.2d 756; see also Stokes v. City of Jacksonville, 276 So.2d 200,…