Starlight Corp. v. City of Miami Beach
| Citation | 57 So.2d 6 |
| Parties | STARLIGHT CORP. et al. v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH et al. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1952 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Sibley & Davis, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Ben Shepard, Miami, and Joseph Wanick, Miami Beach, for appellees.
Chapter 23413, Special Acts of 1945, Laws of Florida, authorized the City of Miami Beach to construct and erect a hospital, a library, an auditorium and other public buildings on property owned by said city on what is commonly known as Miami Beach Municipal Golf Course. The City Council of Miami Beach adopted Resolution No. 6229, pursuant to Chapter 23413, which provided for the construction of a municipal auditorium. The above resolution, in conformity with its charter provisions, was submitted to the freeholders of the City of Miami Beach and the voters at an election approved the issuance of bonds in the sum of $750,000 and the proceeds thereof were to be used in the construction of a public or municipal auditorium to be used for the entertainment of its winter visitors to Miami Beach.
The bonds were duly validated and sold and the proceeds properly used in the construction of the municipal auditorium. The service costs of the bonds are borne by the taxpayers of said city and at regular intervals blocks thereof are retired or paid out of the general revenue fund, which in part is supported by an ad valorem tax on all the property within said city. For the purpose of entertainment of its winter visitors the City of Miami Beach booked for its municipal auditorium theatrical attractions, from time to time, reasonably calculated to be of interest to its visitors.
It appears by the record in this cause that Starlight Corporation, and its lessee, are engaged in the amusement or entertainment business in Miami Beach similar in many respects to the business conducted by the city through its municipally owned auditorium. Accordingly, it filed a bill of complaint in which it contended it was beyond the charter power of the City of Miami Beach to operate its theatrical or amusement business in competition with the privately owned business of Starlight Corporation and its lessee. It was contended the City of Miami Beach had the power to own the municipal auditorium but was without power to operate same as was shown in the bill of complaint in competition with the privately owned business of the plaintiffs.
Answers were filed to the bill of complaint by the named defendants and the cause was heard in the Court below by the Chancellor on final hearing on bill and answers, which resulted in a decree of dismissal. The plaintiffs appealed. The following question is submitted as controlling:
Does a municipal corporation which has been authorized by the Legislature 'to construct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fla. Dept. of Rev. V. City of Gainesville
...of discretion. See Gate City Garage, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 66 So.2d 653 (Fla.1953) (parking facility); Starlight Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, 57 So.2d 6 (Fla.1952) (auditorium); City of Jacksonville, 50 So.2d at 535 (radio station). The Court was unwilling to hold that the Legislat......
-
State v. Inter-American Center Authority
...52 So.2d 125, in which we approved a tax for better recreational facilities for the local and the general public; Starlight Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, Fla., 57 So.2d 6, relating to the use of the municipal auditorium. In all of these cases we approved bond issues or taxes to encourage re......
-
State v. City of Miami Beach
...v. City of Daytona Beach, 1948, 160 Fla. 131, 33 So.2d 218; State v. City of Miami, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 457; Starlight Corporation v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.1954, 57 So.2d 6; State v. City of Miami, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 655; State v. Inter-American Center Authority, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 9, and......
-
Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc.
...the 1949 Equity Rules, now Rule 1.36(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. This uncertainty was resolved when, in Starlight Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.1952, 57 So.2d 6, the court categorized the decree entered on defendant's motion as being authorized by Equity Rule 40. However, in R......