Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State, Bd. of Trustees v. Lost Tree Vill.green2 sentences2016Corp., 600 So.2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“Although the Board, acting in its proprietary capacity as owner of sovereign submerged lands, ⅛ different from other state agencies acting in a regulatory capacity,’... the policies underlying the public trust doctrine do not of themselves exempt the Board from the operation, of the APA.”) (citation omitted). 2016Corp., 600 So. 2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (“Although the Board, acting in its proprietary capacity as owner of sovereign submerged lands, ‘is different from other state agencies acting in a regulatory capacity,’. . . the policies underlying the public trust doctrine do not of themselves exempt the Board from the operation of the APA.”) (citation omitted). 19 The Board says the challenged modifications to the deed restrictions were “the exercise of a minor and purely propriety right” and that the State’s “only interest is a distant proprietary role completely separate, and disconnected f | 3 | 3 |
Graham v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2026This is because at common law, pursuant to the public trust doctrine, “all navigable waters and lands under such waters were held by the sovereign for the benefit of the people.” BB Inlet Prop., LLC v. 920 N. Stanley Partners, LLC, 293 So. 3d 538 , 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Graham v. Edwards, 472 So. 2d 803, 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)). 2001See id. ("Although the Board, acting in its proprietary capacity as owner of sovereign submerged lands, `is different from other state agencies acting in a regulatory capacity,' the policies underlying the public trust doctrine do not of themselves exempt the Board from the operation of the APA." (citation omitted)); see also Mariner Properties Dev. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 743 So.2d 1121, 1122-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Lost Tree Village Corp. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 698 So.2d 634, 635-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Board of Trust | 2 | 2 |
McDowell v. Trustees of Internal Improvement Fundgreen2 sentences2009See McDowell v. Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund , 90 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1956); White v. Hughes , 190 So. 446 (Fla. 1939); Adams v. Elliott , 174 So. 731 (Fla. 1937); and Ops. 1979See McDowell v. Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund, 90 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1956); White v. Hughes, 190 So. 446 (Fla. 1939); Adams v. Elliott, 174 So. 731 (Fla. 1937); and AGO 073-430. | 2 | 2 |
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Barnettgreen2 sentences2001See id. ("Although the Board, acting in its proprietary capacity as owner of sovereign submerged lands, `is different from other state agencies acting in a regulatory capacity,' the policies underlying the public trust doctrine do not of themselves exempt the Board from the operation of the APA." (citation omitted)); see also Mariner Properties Dev. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 743 So.2d 1121, 1122-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Lost Tree Village Corp. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 698 So.2d 634, 635-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Board of Trust 1992Although the Board, acting in its proprietary capacity as owner of sovereign submerged lands, "is different from other state agencies acting in a regulatory capacity," Board of Trustees v. Barnett, 533 So.2d 1202, 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the policies underlying the public trust doctrine do not of themselves exempt the Board from the operation of the APA. | 2 | 2 |
Hayes v. Bowmangreen2 sentences2014The public trust doctrine was codified in article X, section 11, of the Florida Constitution, which recites that “[t]he title to lands under navigable waters, within the boundaries of the state, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people.” Thus, the State did not hold title to submerged lands “for purposes of sale or conversion into money.” Hayes, 91 So.2d at 799 . 2014Rather, such lands are “trust property and should be devoted to the fulfillment of the purposes of the trust, towit [sic]: the service of the people.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Martin v. Buschgreen1 sentence2026“Upon the admission of Florida into the Union by Act of Congress of March 3, 1845, the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, became the owner of all lands under the navigable waters within the state[.]” Martin v. Busch, 112 So. 274, 283 (Fla. 1927) (citing Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)). | 1 | 1 |
Holland v. Fort Pierce Financing & Construction Co.green2 sentences2016Co., 157 Fla. 649 , 27 So.2d 76, 81 (1946). 2016Co., 157 Fla. 649 , 27 So.2d 76, 81 (1946). | 1 | 1 |
5F, LLC v. Dresinggreen2 sentences2016For example, the Second District recently observed that simply because state submerged lands are conveyed into private hands does not entirely extinguish the State’s right to oversee their use, saying that “though it is apparent the authority to control and manage submerged lands is restricted by the public trust doctrine, we do not believe that such authority can be stripped from the State even if the submerged land becomes privately owned.” 5F, LLC v. Dresing, 142 So.3d 936, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (emphasis added). 1 That is so even in the “increasingly rare” situations where the “submerged 2016For example, the Second District recently observed that simply because state submerged lands are conveyed into private hands does not entirely extinguish the State’s right to oversee their use, saying that “though it is apparent the authority to control and manage submerged lands is restricted by the public trust doctrine, we do not believe that such authority can be stripped from the State even if the submerged land becomes privately owned.” 5F, LLC v. Dresing, 142 So.3d 936, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (emphasis added). 1 That is so even in the “increasingly rare” situations where the “submerged | 1 | 1 |
Lost Tree Village Corp. v. Board of Trusteesgreen2 sentences2001See id. ("Although the Board, acting in its proprietary capacity as owner of sovereign submerged lands, `is different from other state agencies acting in a regulatory capacity,' the policies underlying the public trust doctrine do not of themselves exempt the Board from the operation of the APA." (citation omitted)); see also Mariner Properties Dev. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 743 So.2d 1121, 1122-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Lost Tree Village Corp. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 698 So.2d 634, 635-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Board of Trust 2001See id. ("Although the Board, acting in its proprietary capacity as owner of sovereign submerged lands, `is different from other state agencies acting in a regulatory capacity,' the policies underlying the public trust doctrine do not of themselves exempt the Board from the operation of the APA." (citation omitted)); see also Mariner Properties Dev. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 743 So.2d 1121, 1122-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Lost Tree Village Corp. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 698 So.2d 634, 635-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Board of Trust | 1 | 1 |
Mariner Properties Development, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fundgreen2 sentences2001See id. ("Although the Board, acting in its proprietary capacity as owner of sovereign submerged lands, `is different from other state agencies acting in a regulatory capacity,' the policies underlying the public trust doctrine do not of themselves exempt the Board from the operation of the APA." (citation omitted)); see also Mariner Properties Dev. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 743 So.2d 1121, 1122-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Lost Tree Village Corp. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 698 So.2d 634, 635-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Board of Trust 2001See id. ("Although the Board, acting in its proprietary capacity as owner of sovereign submerged lands, `is different from other state agencies acting in a regulatory capacity,' the policies underlying the public trust doctrine do not of themselves exempt the Board from the operation of the APA." (citation omitted)); see also Mariner Properties Dev. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 743 So.2d 1121, 1122-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Lost Tree Village Corp. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 698 So.2d 634, 635-36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Board of Trust | 1 | 1 |
TRUSTEES OF INTERNAL IMPROVE. FUND v. Claughtongreen1 sentence1999Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Claughton, 86 So.2d 775, 786 (Fla.1956) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Meek v. Haysgreen2 sentences1998Meek v. Hays, 246 Kan. 99 , 785 P.2d 1356, 1363-64 (1990) ( Phillips Petroleum did not alter state law regarding public rights in nonnavigable waters and did not authorize states to extend the public trust doctrine to nonnavigable waters); Delacroix Corp. v. Jones-O'Brien, Inc., 597 So.2d 65, 70 (La.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 604 So.2d 1303 (La.1992) ( Phillips Petroleum should not be construed to upset titles long established under state law); Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wash.2d 219 , 858 P.2d 232 (1993) (rejecting dissenter's view, id. at 243 , 858 P.2d at 245 , that the public tru 1998Meek v. Hays, 246 Kan. 99 , 785 P.2d 1356, 1363-64 (1990) ( Phillips Petroleum did not alter state law regarding public rights in nonnavigable waters and did not authorize states to extend the public trust doctrine to nonnavigable waters); Delacroix Corp. v. Jones-O'Brien, Inc., 597 So.2d 65, 70 (La.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 604 So.2d 1303 (La.1992) ( Phillips Petroleum should not be construed to upset titles long established under state law); Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wash.2d 219 , 858 P.2d 232 (1993) (rejecting dissenter's view, id. at 243 , 858 P.2d at 245 , that the public tru | 1 | 1 |
Delacroix Corp. v. Jones-O'Brien, Inc.green1 sentence1998Meek v. Hays, 246 Kan. 99 , 785 P.2d 1356, 1363-64 (1990) ( Phillips Petroleum did not alter state law regarding public rights in nonnavigable waters and did not authorize states to extend the public trust doctrine to nonnavigable waters); Delacroix Corp. v. Jones-O'Brien, Inc., 597 So.2d 65, 70 (La.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 604 So.2d 1303 (La.1992) ( Phillips Petroleum should not be construed to upset titles long established under state law); Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wash.2d 219 , 858 P.2d 232 (1993) (rejecting dissenter's view, id. at 243 , 858 P.2d at 245 , that the public tru | 1 | 1 |
Marine One, Inc. v. Manatee Countygreen1 sentence1997See id. at 1492-1493 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. Hughes
green
2 sentences2009See McDowell v. Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund , 90 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1956); White v. Hughes , 190 So. 446 (Fla. 1939); Adams v. Elliott , 174 So. 731 (Fla. 1937); and Ops. 1979See McDowell v. Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund, 90 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1956); White v. Hughes, 190 So. 446 (Fla. 1939); Adams v. Elliott, 174 So. 731 (Fla. 1937); and AGO 073-430. | 2 | 1979–2009 |
Adams v. Elliott, Et Vir
green
2 sentences2009See McDowell v. Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund , 90 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1956); White v. Hughes , 190 So. 446 (Fla. 1939); Adams v. Elliott , 174 So. 731 (Fla. 1937); and Ops. 1979See McDowell v. Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund, 90 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1956); White v. Hughes, 190 So. 446 (Fla. 1939); Adams v. Elliott, 174 So. 731 (Fla. 1937); and AGO 073-430. | 2 | 1979–2009 |
Pollard's Lessee v. HAGAN
green
1 sentence2026“Upon the admission of Florida into the Union by Act of Congress of March 3, 1845, the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, became the owner of all lands under the navigable waters within the state[.]” Martin v. Busch, 112 So. 274, 283 (Fla. 1927) (citing Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Williams v. Guthrie
green
2 sentences2014In Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Medeira Beach Nominee, Inc., 272 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), a case addressing title to accreted lands as between the Board of Trustees and the riparian owner, this court expressly recognized a “qualified common law right to wharf out to navigable waters in the absence of a statute.” Id. at 214 (citing Freed, 93 Fla. 888 , 112 So. 841 ; Williams, 102 Fla. 1047 , 137 So. 682 ). 8 The Medeira Beach decision also recognizes the public trust doctrine and the impact of governmental regulation on the rights of the public and riparian o 2014In Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Medeira Beach Nominee, Inc., 272 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), a case addressing title to accreted lands as between the Board of Trustees and the riparian owner, this court expressly recognized a “qualified common law right to wharf out to navigable waters in the absence of a statute.” Id. at 214 (citing Freed, 93 Fla. 888 , 112 So. 841 ; Williams, 102 Fla. 1047 , 137 So. 682 ). 8 The Medeira Beach decision also recognizes the public trust doctrine and the impact of governmental regulation on the rights of the public and riparian o | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Freed Freed v. Miami Beach Pier Corporation
green
2 sentences2014In Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Medeira Beach Nominee, Inc., 272 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), a case addressing title to accreted lands as between the Board of Trustees and the riparian owner, this court expressly recognized a “qualified common law right to wharf out to navigable waters in the absence of a statute.” Id. at 214 (citing Freed, 93 Fla. 888 , 112 So. 841 ; Williams, 102 Fla. 1047 , 137 So. 682 ). 8 The Medeira Beach decision also recognizes the public trust doctrine and the impact of governmental regulation on the rights of the public and riparian o 2014In Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Medeira Beach Nominee, Inc., 272 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), a case addressing title to accreted lands as between the Board of Trustees and the riparian owner, this court expressly recognized a “qualified common law right to wharf out to navigable waters in the absence of a statute.” Id. at 214 (citing Freed, 93 Fla. 888 , 112 So. 841 ; Williams, 102 Fla. 1047 , 137 So. 682 ). 8 The Medeira Beach decision also recognizes the public trust doctrine and the impact of governmental regulation on the rights of the public and riparian o | 1 | 2014–2014 |
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. v. Medeira Beach Nom., Inc.
green
2 sentences2014In Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Medeira Beach Nominee, Inc., 272 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), a case addressing title to accreted lands as between the Board of Trustees and the riparian owner, this court expressly recognized a “qualified common law right to wharf out to navigable waters in the absence of a statute.” Id. at 214 (citing Freed, 93 Fla. 888 , 112 So. 841 ; Williams, 102 Fla. 1047 , 137 So. 682 ). 8 The Medeira Beach decision also recognizes the public trust doctrine and the impact of governmental regulation on the rights of the public and riparian o 2014In Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Medeira Beach Nominee, Inc., 272 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), a case addressing title to accreted lands as between the Board of Trustees and the riparian owner, this court expressly recognized a “qualified common law right to wharf out to navigable waters in the absence of a statute.” Id. at 214 (citing Freed, 93 Fla. 888 , 112 So. 841 ; Williams, 102 Fla. 1047 , 137 So. 682 ). 8 The Medeira Beach decision also recognizes the public trust doctrine and the impact of governmental regulation on the rights of the public and riparian o | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Shore Village Owners'association, Inc. v. Department of Env. Protection
green
1 sentence2014The Fourth District has three times expressly stated that riparian rights in Florida include the right “to wharf out to navigability.” In Shore Village the court addressed “whether riparian rights necessarily include the building of a *945 dock.” 824 So.2d at 211 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Brickell v. Trammel
green
2 sentences2008As we explained in Brickell v. Trammell, 77 Fla. 544 , 82 So. 221 (1919), this public trust doctrine has its origins in English common law: Under the common law of England the crown in its sovereign capacity held the title to the beds of navigable or tide waters, including the shore or the space between high and low water marks, in *1110 trust for the people of the realm who had rights of navigation, commerce, fishing, bathing, and other easements allowed by law in the waters. 2008As we explained in Brickell v. Trammell, 77 Fla. 544 , 82 So. 221 (1919), this public trust doctrine has its origins in English common law: Under the common law of England the crown in its sovereign capacity held the title to the beds of navigable or tide waters, including the shore or the space between high and low water marks, in *1110 trust for the people of the realm who had rights of navigation, commerce, fishing, bathing, and other easements allowed by law in the waters. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology
green
2 sentences1998Meek v. Hays, 246 Kan. 99 , 785 P.2d 1356, 1363-64 (1990) ( Phillips Petroleum did not alter state law regarding public rights in nonnavigable waters and did not authorize states to extend the public trust doctrine to nonnavigable waters); Delacroix Corp. v. Jones-O'Brien, Inc., 597 So.2d 65, 70 (La.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 604 So.2d 1303 (La.1992) ( Phillips Petroleum should not be construed to upset titles long established under state law); Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wash.2d 219 , 858 P.2d 232 (1993) (rejecting dissenter's view, id. at 243 , 858 P.2d at 245 , that the public tru 1998Meek v. Hays, 246 Kan. 99 , 785 P.2d 1356, 1363-64 (1990) ( Phillips Petroleum did not alter state law regarding public rights in nonnavigable waters and did not authorize states to extend the public trust doctrine to nonnavigable waters); Delacroix Corp. v. Jones-O'Brien, Inc., 597 So.2d 65, 70 (La.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 604 So.2d 1303 (La.1992) ( Phillips Petroleum should not be construed to upset titles long established under state law); Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wash.2d 219 , 858 P.2d 232 (1993) (rejecting dissenter's view, id. at 243 , 858 P.2d at 245 , that the public tru | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Wehner
green
1 sentence1998Meek v. Hays, 246 Kan. 99 , 785 P.2d 1356, 1363-64 (1990) ( Phillips Petroleum did not alter state law regarding public rights in nonnavigable waters and did not authorize states to extend the public trust doctrine to nonnavigable waters); Delacroix Corp. v. Jones-O'Brien, Inc., 597 So.2d 65, 70 (La.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 604 So.2d 1303 (La.1992) ( Phillips Petroleum should not be construed to upset titles long established under state law); Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wash.2d 219 , 858 P.2d 232 (1993) (rejecting dissenter's view, id. at 243 , 858 P.2d at 245 , that the public tru | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1998What Phillips Petroleum makes clear, however, and what the Trustees implicitly recognize, is that the public trust doctrine is a creature of the common law, the extent of which and alterations to which are subject to judicial determination, at least where there is no contrary constitutional or legislative directive. 484 U.S. at 475 , 108 S.Ct. at 794-95 . 1998What Phillips Petroleum makes clear, however, and what the Trustees implicitly recognize, is that the public trust doctrine is a creature of the common law, the extent of which and alterations to which are subject to judicial determination, at least where there is no contrary constitutional or legislative directive. 484 U.S. at 475 , 108 S.Ct. at 794-95 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Welles v. Berry
green
1 sentence1997Appellant relies on the case of Welles v. Berry, 434 So.2d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), for the proposition that when a party is granted a royalty interest in oil, gas, and minerals, there is an implied covenant (of fair dealing) on the part of the grantor that they will continue to make good-faith efforts to lease the property so as to not defeat the interest of the holder of the royalty interest. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance
green
1 sentence1992Appellants assert that the moratorium is consistent with the Board's duties under the public trust doctrine, that it is permissible under the applicable rules and statutes, and that the findings below suggest the hearing officer ignored McDonald v. Dep't of Banking & Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), as it pertains to the implementation of a moratorium outside the requirements of the APA. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
City of Daytona Beach Shores v. State
green
1 sentence1989The court, however, did find that: the public trust doctrine, which declares that Florida's beach sovereignty lands must be accessible to the public, does not prohibit local governments from imposing reasonable user fees for motor vehicle beach access, so long as the revenue is expended solely for the protection and welfare of the public using that particular beach, as well as for improvements that will enhance the public's use of the sovereign property. 483 So.2d at 408 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Black River Phosphate Co.
neutral
1 sentence1986The earliest Florida court decision the majority is able to cite in support of the existence of the public trust doctrine is State v. Black River Phosphate Co., 32 Fla. 82 , 13 So. 640 (1893), which was not decided until after the execution of the deeds in question in these cases. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.