Hillsborough County v. Sapp
| Decision Date | 11 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 42501,42501 |
| Citation | 280 So.2d 443 |
| Parties | HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. Bobby Leon SAPP et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
William C. McLean, Jr., Tampa, for petitioner.
Albert Cazin and Paul Antinori, Jr., Tampa, for respondents.
Geoffrey B. Dobson, Gen. Counsel, and Barbara Ann Dell McPherson, Asst. Atty., Tallahassee, for amicus curiae, Florida Dept. of Transp.
Before us for review on petition for writ of certiorari is a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, 262 So.2d 256, which reversed an order of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court approving the condemnation of respondents' properties by the County. The District Court decision directly conflicts with Boley, et al. v. Escambia County, 100 Fla. 505, 129 So. 784 (1930), and Wilton, et al. v. St. John's County, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527 (1929). We therefore have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Fla.Const., F.S.A.
The order reviewed by the District Court found that the road right of way for which the County was condemning respondents' lands was surveyed and located 'in good faith and consistent with the public interest; and that no abuse of discretion was shown. . . .'
On appeal, the District Court in a divided opinion held that there was an abuse of discretion on the part of the condemning authority. The only basis for this holding was respondents' contention that there is a vast unoccupied wooded area to the east of their homes through which the proposed road could just as easily have been located. The District Court stated:
'. . . It is inconceivable to us, from viewing the aerial maps and studying the testimony adduced at the hearing, that the State is unable to design a curved highway to accomplish the purposes for which this road is being constructed through the unoccupied area east of appellants' homes and at the same time serve the school now being constructed.'
We would agree that the condemning authority had abused its discretion if we felt that the sole criteria it should have considered was whether or not there was an alternate route over unoccupied land. There are, however, many other factors which should properly weigh upon the decisions of which route to select and which land to condemn. Some of those are cost, environmental factors, long-range area planning, and--in this case--the safety considerations necessary when designing a highway next to a school. Some of these factors--cost, for example--involve many sub-factors, such as the value of the land, the engineering problems presented by the terrain, etc. The District Court erred, therefore, in focussing solely on the one issue raised by respondents.
In our oft-cited decision of Wilton, et al. v. St. John's County, Supra, we thoroughly discussed condemnation under the eminent domain power and the relationship of the courts thereto. In considering the discretion of a condemning authority, we stated:
'. . . The landowners cannot object merely because some other location might have been made or some other property obtained which would have been suitable for the purpose. . . .'
In Boley, et...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alabama Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Watson
...many sub-factors, such as the value of the land, the engineering problems presented by the terrain, et cetera. Hillsboro County v. Sapp, (Fla.) 280 So.2d 443. The Plaintiff's Manager of Engineering Services, whose job involves the planning, engineering, design, and construction of facilitie......
-
Gregory v. Indian River County, 90-3135
...of alternative means or routes is not the sole criteria by which to measure discretion of the condemning authority. Hillsborough County v. Sapp, 280 So.2d 443 (Fla.1973). The decision made by the local elected body concerning what and how much land is to be taken involves many factors and i......
-
City of Lakeland v. Bunch, 44509
...to the decision by a condemning authority that a necessity exists to condemn private property for a public purpose. Hillsborough County v. Sapp, 280 So.2d 443 (Fla.1973); City of Miami Beach v. Rott, 94 So.2d 173 (Fla.1957); Sibley v. Volusia County, 147 Fla. 256, 2 So.2d 578 (Fla.1941); Wi......
-
Rawls v. Leon County
...environmental factors, long-range area planning, safety considerations and the existence of alternative routes. See Hillsborough County v. Sapp, 280 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla.1973); see also Cordones v. Brevard County, 781 So.2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Florida Power Corp. v. Gulf Ridge Council, ......