Jacobsen v. Padgett, 687
| Decision Date | 31 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 687,687 |
| Citation | 108 So.2d 303 |
| Parties | Russell M. O. JACOBSEN, as Zoning Director of the Orange County Zoning Commission, and Randolph Y. Matheny, Katherine Day, Lawrence Dietrick, Rose McCoy, and Isaac S. Prescott, as and constituting the Orange County Zoning Commission, Appellants, v. Sanford W. PADGETT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Akerman, Dial & Akerman, Orlando, for appellants.
Fishback, Williams, Davis & Dominick, Orlando, for appellee.
Sanford W. Padgett was the owner of a tract of land in Orange County upon which he was operating a trailer park with twenty-six trailer spaces and accessory facilities installed and in use at the time of the passage of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Orange County Zoning Commission. The said Resolution permitted the continued operation of the trailer park as a non-conforming use, but provided that any non-conforming use should not be enlarged or extended.
The Resolution was adopted on May 6, 1957, and during January, 1958, Appellee commenced the installation of ten additional trailer spaces. Appellants sought injunction restraining the extension of such non-conforming use by Appellee and a mandatory injunction for the removal of all trailer spaces added since May 6, 1957. Appellants' amended petition for injunction contains no express allegations of fact to indicate that the extension of the trailer park operation constitutes a nuisance, but merely alleges that the extension of the nonconforming use constitutes a public nuisance. The Chancellor below dismissed Appellants' petition for injunction as not stating a cause of action, from which order this appeal is taken.
In an able opinion the Chancellor cited the case of Philbrick v. City of Miami, 147 Fla. 538, 3 So.2d 144, 146, as the controlling authority on the question presented here. That question being: 'Does a petition for injunctive relief alleging only that respondent is violating the conditions of a Zoning Resolution sufficiently state a cause of action without allegations showing the existence of the alleged nuisance and the extent of the damage occasioned thereby?' We agree with the Chancellor that the controlling authority is the Philbrick case cited above. In that case the Supreme Court of Florida made this observation:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rich v. Ryals, 36838
...a decree in favor of the defendants for the reason that the county had failed to show a public nuisance and relied upon Jacobsen v. Padgett, Fla.App. 1959, 108 So.2d 303. 'The court went on to say that the county had an adequate remedy at law in that the defendants could be prosecuted for v......
-
Ryals v. Rich
...147 Fla. 538, 3 So.2d 144; Pompano Horse Club v. State ex rel. Bryan, 1927, 93 Fla. 415, 111 So. 801, 52 A.L.R. 51; Jacobsen v. Padgett, Fla.App. 1958, 108 So.2d 303. The plaintiff relies upon the command found in the literal wording of the act to the effect that the Court Shall issue an in......
-
Mangum v. Board of County Com'rs of Brevard County, 1121
...a haven for rodents and a breeding place for mosquitoes.' They refer to Philbrick v. City of Miami Beach, supra, and Jacobsen v. Padgett, Fla.App.1958, 108 So.2d 303, as supporting this We have reviewed these decisions in the light of the later decision in Cotney v. Board of County Com'rs o......
-
Pinellas County v. Hooker
...a decree in favor of the defendants for the reason that the county had failed to show a public nuisance and relied upon Jacobsen v. Padgett, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 303. The court went on to say that the county had an adequate remedy at law in that the defendants could be prosecuted for vio......