Cunningham v. State Plant Bd. of Fla., 774
| Decision Date | 03 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 774,774 |
| Citation | 112 So.2d 905 |
| Parties | James L. CUNNINGHAM and his wife, Helen M. Cunningham, Appellants, v. STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA, a body corporate under the Laws of the State of Florida, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Henry L. Jollay, Winter Haven, for appellants.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Geen., Ralph E. Odum, Asst. Atty. Gen., Allan F. Milledge, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Court below dismissing appellants' Complaint, which was filed on September 5, 1957. By their Complaint, appellants brought an action in tort against the appellees whom they charged with entering a citrus grove belonging to appellants, and pulling all of the trees from approximately 10 acres in accordance with the Plant Board's program for control of the burrowing nematode. It was alleged that the entry took place on September 11, 1956, over the protest of appellants, and that the trees which were pulled bore a normal crop. It was further alleged in the Complaint that none of the trees destroyed were infested, or, that if any were infested, they were few in number. Appellants then set forth their allegations of damage totaling $40,000. These elements are the value of the trees, the value of the crop, the cost of setting out a new grove, and loss of profits by reason of nonproduction until new trees matured. Appellees filed a Motion to Dismiss which was granted.
In this appeal, appellants list three points upon which they rely for reversal. They are the following:
'I. Can a suit be maintained against the State Plant Board of Florida for the value of property of the plaintiffs taken by the Board in pursuance of its program to erdicate 'slow decline' in the citrus groves of the State of Florida without a hearing over the protests of the owners, and without payment, or the offer of payment, for the property taken?
Due to developments occurring since appellants' cause of action arose, we believe that their third point should be considered initially because it controls, to a large extent, the other two. At the time this cause of action arose the appellees were operating under regulations they had promulgated to effectuate and carry out the provisions of Chapter 29878, Laws of 1955, F.S.A. § 581.15. Thereafter, in January, 1957, by its decision in the case of Corneal v. State Plant Board, Fla., 95 So.2d 1, the Supreme Court of Florida granted an injunction against the destruction of healthy trees under the Board's program. It is to be noted that the decision in the Corneal case was rendered after the performance of the acts of which appellants complain. In its next session, the legislature adopted Chapter 57-365, Laws of 1957 (§ 581.17 (2), Fla.Statutes, F.S.A.). The preamble of this Act makes direct reference to the Supreme Court's holding in the Corneal case. Chapter 57-365 directs the Board to carry out a compulsory program, both as to infested and non-infested trees, provides for reasonable compensation not to exceed $1,000 per acre for the destruction of trees which are not infested, but provides that no compensation shall be paid for the destruction of infested trees. It further provides that the State Plant Board shall determine the amount of compensation to be paid, and that payment is to be made upon written application of the grove owner. The Act also provides for a hearing to be given any dissatisfied owner, and for an appeal from the decision of the Board to the Circuit Court. Chapter 57-365 became a law in June, 1957, after appellants' claim vested, but prior to the filing of their Complaint.
In arguing Point III appellants urge that the right to receive just compensation for the destruction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Von Stetina
...1st DCA 1976). In City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So.2d 133 (Fla.1961), this Court said: Id. at 136 (citing Cunningham v. State Plant Board, 112 So.2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 115 So.2d 701 (Fla.1959)). We accept the Fund's view that the 1982 amendment to section 768.54 is remedi......
-
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Bonanno, 74373
...of power which was binding upon parties whose trees had been destroyed prior to the enactment of the statute. Cunningham v. State Plant Board, 112 So.2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 115 So.2d 701 (Fla.1959). The relevance of these decisions will become more apparent as the several const......
-
Gordon v. John Deere Company
...in the absence of positive legislative expression, such a statute is presumed to operate prospectively only. Cunningham v. State Plant Board, 112 So.2d 905 (Fla.App.1959), cert. den. 115 So.2d 701 (Fla.1959); Heberle v. P.R.O. Liquidating Co., 186 So. 2d 280 (Fla.App.1966); Meier v. Grimes,......
-
State v. Smiley, 4D06-479.
...remedy or confirmation of rights already existing. City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So.2d 133 (Fla.1961); Cunningham v. State Plant Bd. of Fla., 112 So.2d 905 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1959). Because on the facts of this case a person did not have a right of self-defense without the duty to retreat u......