Carmazi v. Board of County Com'rs of Dade County
| Citation | 104 So.2d 727 |
| Parties | 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. |
| Decision Date | 18 July 1958 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
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.
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.
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 any property rights that would be impinged upon by the construction of the proposed dam by the the Flood Control District. The Chancellor concluded that the Flood Control District had the power to construct the dam; that it was for a public purpose; that its construction involved no abuse of discretion by the District; and that the abutting property owners were not vested with a property right that would require payment of damages by the Flood Control District as a result of their being barred from passage by boat from their property into the waters of Biscayne Bay. Other matters were adjudicated but it is unnecessary to discuss them here. We do not pass on the merits of any of them. This decree was entered August 23, 1957, and is brought here for review by notice of appeal filed by all of the appellants named above.
In view of the amendment of Article V, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., which became effective July 1, 1957, and particularly Section 4 of Article V, it has become necessary for this court many times to consider carefully the outer limits of its jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution. It is oftentimes with reluctance that we are compelled by the well-defined limits of our jurisdiction to transfer to other appellate courts cases which are of obvious importance but which, nonetheless, do not fall within any area of the jurisdiction of this court as delineated by the Constitution. In such instances we have no discretion in the matter. It is purely a situation where this court does not have the jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The instant case appears to us to be such a situation.
The appellants apparently have come here pursuant to that portion of Article V, Section 4, Florida Constitution, which authorizes an appeal to this court as a matter of right from a final decree 'construing a controlling provision of the Florida or federal constitution'. It also appears that appellants undertake to bring their cause within our jurisdiction by pointing to Section 12, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., which provides in part: 'nor shall private property be taken without just compensation'. In addition and assuming that Article XVI, Section 29, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schermerhorn v. Local 1625 of Retail Clerks Intern. Ass'n, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
...unquestionably construes 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, ......
-
Carmazi v. Board of County Com'rs of Dade County
...These appeals were originally 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 ar......
-
State v. Lyons
...Vacated and remanded. McNULTY and GRIMES, 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,......
-
Couse v. Canal Authority, 36443
...of petitioner's estimate 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 193.5 150 Fla. 496, 8 So.2d 19 (1942). See also Kilgore v. B......