Rayan Corp. v. Bd. of Cty. Commr

5 Citing cases

  1. B W Management, Inc. v. Tasea Inv. Co.

    451 A.2d 879 (D.C. 1982)   Cited 31 times
    Noting that public nuisance claims also traditionally covered "a variety of minor criminal offenses that interfered, for example, with the public health, safety, morals, peace, or convenience"

    Courts have recognized, in another context, one general exception to the rule that business competition does not constitute special damage: an alcoholic beverage dealer suffers a special injury, and thus has standing to object, when a competitor violates a law regulating the business. Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So.2d at 1090; see Rayan Corp., Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, 356 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1978); A. RATHKOPF, 3 LAW OF ZONING PLANNING § 43.06, at 43-38 n. 8 (1982). This rule is based on the fact that, "if forced by competition to move, it would be extremely difficult [for a liquor dealer] to secure a license for a different location." Id.

  2. Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc.

    363 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1978)   Cited 34 times
    Stating that the “special damage” rule still has vitality in actions seeking to enforce a valid zoning ordinance, albeit with a more liberal application

    We find the case of Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1972) to be on point: ". . . persons having a legally recognizable interest, which is adversely affected by the proposed zoning action, have standing to sue." We note that the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Rayan Corporation, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, 356 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), a case having substantially the same issue as the instant cause, concluded similarly to the district court herein. 349 So.2d at 660.

  3. Cole v. City of Deltona

    890 So. 2d 480 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 1 times

    We note that other Florida courts have distinguished the decision in Skaggs-Albertson's as announcing a specific rule relating to the standing issue to obtain injunctive relief which requires the party seeking the injunction to demonstrate that he or she has incurred special damages. See Exchange Invs., Inc. v. Alachua County, 481 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Rayan Corp., Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs of Dade County, 356 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also Messett v. Cohen, 741 So.2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (recognizing that the special damages standard applies to the issue of standing). Here, standing is not an issue, and the trial court should not have applied the special damages standard to determine whether Cole alleged and demonstrated irreparable harm.

  4. Miami-Dade Cty. v. Brennan

    802 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 3 times

    See, e.g., Hemisphere Equity Realty v. Key Biscayne Property Taxpayers Ass'n, 369 So.2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Once upon a time unnecessary hardship had been the standard for all variances in Miami-Dade County's unincorporated area. See, e.g.,Rayan Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, 356 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Burger King Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 349 So.2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977);Servatt v. Dade County, 173 So.2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Dade County v. Frank n' Bun Operating Co., 169 So.2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Notwithstanding that the unnecessary hardship standard applied to all variances, whether use or non-use, in Hemisphere Equity Realty v. Key Biscayne Property Taxpayers Ass'n, 369 So.2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), Dade County attempted to convince the Dade County Circuit Court and this court that while use variances required proof of an unnecessary hardship, non-use variances did not. Dade County did not succeed: "[Dade County and Hemisphere Equity Realty] argue that the `hardship' cases apply only to so-called `use variances,' as opposed to `non-use variances' involved in this case.

  5. Metropolitan Dade County v. Reineng

    399 So. 2d 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In this context, the more narrow question is whether the hardship shown is mere economic hardship or whether the condemnation proceedings and nature of the business are special conditions resulting in a unique and unnecessary hardship. Reineng Corporation has standing to appeal the decision of the Dade County Commission under Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1978) and Rayan Corporation, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, 356 So.2d 1276 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). Metropolitan Dade County, the named appellee in Reineng's suit in the appellate division of the circuit court, joined part one of the brief of Hill Bros. Inc., intervenor below and here appellant, challenging the standing of Reineng Corporation. Economic disadvantage alone does not constitute a hardship sufficient to warrant the granting of a variance.