Carmazi v. Board of County Com'rs of Dade County

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtTHORNAL; TERRELL; DREW; DREW
Citation104 So.2d 727
Decision Date18 July 1958
PartiesAugust M. CARMAZI and Lester M. Muhn, Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, and Central and SouthernFlorida Flood Control District Appellees. Jesse D. HAROLD and Mary E. Harold, his wife, Rudolph R. Radinse and Hilda E.Radinse, his wife, Dave Anderson, Jr., and Jane G. Anderson, his wife, A. L.Shirley and Grace A. Shirley, his wife, Carl Flock and Vera Pierce Flock, hiswife, WalterC. McKelvey andVelma M. McKelvey, his wife, Robert McKay and James Pumo,Appellants, v. CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, Appellee.

Page 727

104 So.2d 727
August M. CARMAZI and Lester M. Muhn, Appellants,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, and Central and SouthernFlorida Flood Control District Appellees.
Jesse D. HAROLD and Mary E. Harold, his wife, Rudolph R. Radinse and Hilda E.Radinse, his wife, Dave Anderson, Jr., and Jane G. Anderson, his wife, A. L.Shirley and Grace A. Shirley, his wife, Carl Flock and Vera Pierce Flock, hiswife, WalterC. McKelvey andVelma M. McKelvey, his wife, Robert McKay and James Pumo,Appellants,
v.
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 18, 1958.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1958.

Charles J. Bodner, Miami, for August M. Carmazi and Lester M. Muhn.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl, John H. Wahl, Jr., Miami, for Jesse D. Harold and others.

Page 728

Robert M. Deehl, Miami, for Robert McKay.

Darrey A. Davis and Thomas C. Britton, Miami, for Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida.

Sturrup & Gautier, Miami, for Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Dist.

THORNAL, Justice.

Appellants in both of the above styled cases seek reversal of a final decree adverse to their claim that appellee Central and Soughern Florida Flood Control District proposes to encroach upon their property rights in the construction of a proposed dam.

We are compelled to dispose of the matter on jurisdictional grounds.

Little River is a navigable stream running through the City of Miami and emptying into Biscayne Bay. A number of years age Dade County constructed a dam across the river in the vicinity of Northwest 2nd Avenue. Appellants Carmazi and Muhn owned propety abutting the river west of and upstream from the dam. The effect of the dam was, of course, to prevent these two appellants from reaching the waters of Biscayne Bay from their property by boat. In 1956, Carmazi and Muhn filed suit asking the court to adjudicate their property rights and to award them damages against Dade County because of the construction of the dam. Pending this suit appellee Central and southern Florida Flood Control District, hereinafter referred to as the Flood Control District, was permitted to intervene on the basis of a petition that the Flood Control District contemplated constructing a similar dam further downstream. The effect of this dam would prevent the other appellant property owners from reaching the waters of Biscayne Bay by boat from their property which also was adjacent to Little River.

On August 29, 1956, the Chancellor ruled in favor of Dade County as against appellants Carmazi and Muhn. He dismissed their complaint with prejudice and reserved jurisdiction to consider the matter as between all appellants and the Flood Control District. Inasmuch as appellants Carmazi and Muhn did not appeal from the decree of August 29, 1956, until October 18, 1957, the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County has heretofore been dismissed from this appeal. The decree of August 29, 1956 was final insofar as Dade County was concerned.

Finally, on August 23, 1957, the Chancellor considered the matter on the basis of the intervening complaint of the Flood Control District which sought a declaration of rights as between the District and all parties to the litigation. The purpose of this intervening complaint was to have the Chancellor determine whether the owners of property adjoining Little River were vested with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Schermerhorn v. Local 1625 of Retail Clerks Intern. Ass'n, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 25, 1962
    ...Section 12, Declaration of Rights. Unlike in Milligan v. Wilson, Fla., 104 So.2d 35, and Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla., 104 So.2d 727, the issues in the instant case required the trial court to rule directly on a constitutional provision. Moreover, the fact that there was s......
  • Carmazi v. Board of County Com'rs of Dade County, Nos. 58-483
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 6, 1959
    ...lodged in the Supreme Court of Florida. By an opinion and order of that court, Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 727, 728, it was held that jurisdiction was improvidently invoked and the cause was transferred to this These appeals are from a final decree adverse ......
  • State v. Lyons, No. 73--728
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 3, 1974
    ...JJ., concur. --------------- 1 Armstrong v. City of Tampa, Fla.1958, 106 So.2d 407; Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 727; Milligan v. Wilson, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 35; Rojas v. State, Fla.1973, 288 So.2d 234, 236; Ogle v. Pepin, Fla.1973, 273 So.2d 2 Federal Rule ......
  • Couse v. Canal Authority, No. 36443
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 1, 1968
    ...of value.' 2 Art. V, Sec. 4, Fla.Const. 3 Robinson v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 3. 4 Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 727; Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.1966, 183 So.2d 5 150 Fla. 496, 8 So.2d 19 (1942). See also Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Schermerhorn v. Local 1625 of Retail Clerks Intern. Ass'n, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 25, 1962
    ...Section 12, Declaration of Rights. Unlike in Milligan v. Wilson, Fla., 104 So.2d 35, and Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla., 104 So.2d 727, the issues in the instant case required the trial court to rule directly on a constitutional provision. Moreover, the fact that there was s......
  • Carmazi v. Board of County Com'rs of Dade County, Nos. 58-483
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 6, 1959
    ...lodged in the Supreme Court of Florida. By an opinion and order of that court, Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 727, 728, it was held that jurisdiction was improvidently invoked and the cause was transferred to this These appeals are from a final decree adverse ......
  • State v. Lyons, No. 73--728
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 3, 1974
    ...JJ., concur. --------------- 1 Armstrong v. City of Tampa, Fla.1958, 106 So.2d 407; Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 727; Milligan v. Wilson, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 35; Rojas v. State, Fla.1973, 288 So.2d 234, 236; Ogle v. Pepin, Fla.1973, 273 So.2d 2 Federal Rule ......
  • Couse v. Canal Authority, No. 36443
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 1, 1968
    ...of value.' 2 Art. V, Sec. 4, Fla.Const. 3 Robinson v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 3. 4 Carmazi v. Board of County Commissioners, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 727; Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.1966, 183 So.2d 5 150 Fla. 496, 8 So.2d 19 (1942). See also Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT