Sarasota County v. Barg
Decision Date | 19 April 1974 |
Docket Number | Nos. 44028--44030,s. 44028--44030 |
Citation | 302 So.2d 737 |
Parties | SARASOTA COUNTY, Florida, et al., Appellants, v. Joseph V. BARG et al., Appellees. Robert L. SHEVIN, as Attorney General of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Joseph V. BARG et al., Appellees. CASEY KEY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants, v. Joseph V. BARG et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard E. Nelson, of Nelson, Stinnett, Surfus, Payne, Hesse & Cyril, Sarasota, for Sarasota County.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Kenneth F. Hoffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Robert L. Shevin.
H. Lawrence Hardy, Tallahassee, of Bryant, Dickens, Rumph, Franson & Miller, Jacksonville, for Casey Key Protective Ass'n, appellants.
Samuel J. Swisher, of Kreag & Swisher, Sarasota, for Furbee, Carroll, Hanson, McLeod and Wright.
Henry P. Trawick, Jr., of Millican & Trawick, Sarasota, for Manasota Lands, Inc., appellees.
On direct appeal we review a summary judgment of the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Sarasota County, which held Chapter 71--904, Laws of Florida, to be unconstitutional. Our jurisdiction vests by virtue of Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 3(b)(1), F.S.A.
Chapter 71--904 is a special act creating the Manasota Key Conservation District within Sarasota County. After establishing the District and defining the boundaries thereof, the Act contains the following provisions (quoted here in full because of the number and complexity of the constitutional challenges raised):
'Upon the appointment of the members of the board of appeals, the governing body of Sarasota County shall cause a copy of said petition, together with the names and addresses of each member of the board of appeals to be furnished by certified mail to each and every real property owner within the district according to the latest tax assessment roll on file with the tax assessor of Sarasota County, Florida.
'The meetings of the board of appeals shall be open to the public and the notice of the time and place of any meeting at which the board of appeals shall consider evidence and act upon the petition of a real property owner shall be published one (1) time in a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County at least fifteen (15) days before the date of said meeting, and the concerned property owner shall likewise receive at least fifteen (15) days notice by certified mail of the time and place of said meeting.
'Upon the adoption of a resolution disposing of a property owner's petition, the duties of the board of appeals shall be deemed discharged, and said board will thereupon stand dissolved, it being the intent of this act to require the appointment and functioning of a new and separate board of appeals to act upon each and every petition of a property owner; however, nothing herein contained shall prevent the appointment of otherwise qualified real property owners within the district to serve upon successive board (sic) of appeals, and the simultaneous appointment and functioning of more than one board of appeals is hereby specifically authorized.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Felts v. State
...Miami Dolphins, Ltd. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 394 So.2d 981 (Fla.1981); State v. Keaton, 371 So.2d 86 (Fla.1979); Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So.2d 737 (Fla.1974).16 State v. Kinner, 398 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1981); State v. Cormier, 375 So.2d 852 (Fla.1979); Hamilton v. State, 366 So.2d 8 (......
-
Advisory Opinion to the Governor, In re
...of legislation are to apply so long as the agency is not delegated the authority to determine what the law shall be. Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So.2d 737 (Fla.1974); Florida Welding & Erection Service, Inc. v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 285 So.2d 386 (Fla.1973). The crucial inquiry in......
-
State, Dept. of Ins. v. Insurance Services Office, VV-367
...based on "age, sex, marital status or scholastic achievement." The nondelegation standard applied, for example, in Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So.2d 737 (Fla.1974), would surely condemn subsection (h) to unconstitutionality, for that decision--as later characterized by the Supreme invalida......
-
Shapiro v. State
...need to resolve doubt in favor of the constitutionality of statutes. Carter v. Sparkman, 335 So.2d 802, 805 (Fla.1976); Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So.2d 737 (Fla.1974); Scarborough v. Newsome, 150 Fla. 220, 7 So.2d 321 (1942). We reject Appellant's assertion that Florida Statute § 491.011......
-
The unclear scope of unconscionability in FDUTPA.
...naked term "unconscionable" is also too vague to permit court interpretation of the legislative intent. See also Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So. 2d 737, 742 (Fla. 1974) (statute's use of"undue" and "unreasonable" did not contain any standards or guidelines to aid any court or administrativ......