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 2 courts 1962–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc.green2 sentences2020Judge Lagoa further explained that supreme court precedent holds that “if an individual can show some special damage from an alleged zoning violation, he or she then has standing to maintain an action to enforce the zoning ordinance in equity against both a municipality and a private party.” Id. at 880 (citing Skaggs-Albertson’s v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So. 2d 1082, 1088 (Fla. 1978); Renard, 261 So. 2d at 837 ; Boucher, 102 So. 2d at 135 ; Page v. Niagara Chem. 2019The rule serves to limit the avalanche of litigation that might otherwise result from any alleged zoning violation; one need not have a surfeit of imagination to picture the results if every member of a community bothered by a single zoning violation was authorized to bring the same suit against the same defendant alleging the same general type of harm.3 See Skaggs-Albertson's, 363 So. 2d at 1088 ; see also U.S. Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla 1974) (quoting Askew v. Hold the Bulkhead-Save 2The Chapmans have not disputed that the special damages rule applies to their | 2 | 3 |
Boucher v. Novotnygreen2 sentences2025In conclusion, because appellants attacked a zoning violation, they 3 Presumably, the alleged water pollution was due to dust and dirt, but the second amended complaint did not contain any details or further elaboration. 7 were required, but failed, to allege “special damages peculiar to [themselves] and differing in kind rather than in degree from the damages suffered by the people as a whole.” Boucher, 102 So. 2d at 135 . 2020Judge Lagoa further explained that supreme court precedent holds that “if an individual can show some special damage from an alleged zoning violation, he or she then has standing to maintain an action to enforce the zoning ordinance in equity against both a municipality and a private party.” Id. at 880 (citing Skaggs-Albertson’s v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So. 2d 1082, 1088 (Fla. 1978); Renard, 261 So. 2d at 837 ; Boucher, 102 So. 2d at 135 ; Page v. Niagara Chem. | 1 | 5 |
Carroll v. City of West Palm Beachgreen2 sentences2019In Carroll v. City of West Palm Beach, 276 So. 2d 491, 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), the plaintiff alleged that the defendant installed high-voltage power lines on property adjacent to his in violation of a zoning ordinance. 1976Carroll v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla.App.4th, 1973, 276 So.2d 491 . | 1 | 2 |
City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillantgreen1 sentence2020As the Florida Supreme Court has explained, we “review . . . the circuit court’s judgment . . . [to] determine[] whether the circuit court [1] afforded procedural due process and [2] applied the correct law.” City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc.green1 sentence2019The rule serves to limit the avalanche of litigation that might otherwise result from any alleged zoning violation; one need not have a surfeit of imagination to picture the results if every member of a community bothered by a single zoning violation was authorized to bring the same suit against the same defendant alleging the same general type of harm.3 See Skaggs-Albertson's, 363 So. 2d at 1088 ; see also U.S. Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla 1974) (quoting Askew v. Hold the Bulkhead-Save 2The Chapmans have not disputed that the special damages rule applies to their | 1 | 1 |
Springtime, Inc. v. Douglas Countygreen2 sentences2016Similarly, the court allowed the defense of laches to go forward in Springtime, Inc. v. Douglas County, 228 Ga. 753 , 187 S.E.2d 874, 877 (1972), when the county had notice of the defendant’s intended construction plans, issued a building permit for the work, and allowed the work to go forward for four months before instituting a zoning violation action. 2016Similarly, the court allowed the defense of laches to go forward in Springtime, Inc. v. Douglas County, 228 Ga. 753 , 187 S.E.2d 874, 877 (1972), when the county had notice of the defendant’s intended construction plans, issued a building permit for the work, and allowed the work to go forward for four months before instituting a zoning violation action. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Detournay involved a homeowners’ association lawsuit to “force the City [of Coral Gables] to pursue its enforcement actions” against a private party in a zoning violation case. 127 So. 3d at 871 . 2019But see Detournay v. City of Coral Gables, 127 So. 3d 869, 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (Lagoa, J., dissenting) (expressing the view that "the Declaratory Judgment Act does not require that a special injury be established"). 3The rule also has doctrinal moorings in the common law governing nuisance—a historical antecedent to modern zoning law—under which a private plaintiff could not maintain an action for a public nuisance unless he or she had suffered special damages. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Renard v. Dade County
green
2 sentences2020Judge Lagoa further explained that supreme court precedent holds that “if an individual can show some special damage from an alleged zoning violation, he or she then has standing to maintain an action to enforce the zoning ordinance in equity against both a municipality and a private party.” Id. at 880 (citing Skaggs-Albertson’s v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So. 2d 1082, 1088 (Fla. 1978); Renard, 261 So. 2d at 837 ; Boucher, 102 So. 2d at 135 ; Page v. Niagara Chem. 2013See Skaggs-Albertson’s, 363 So.2d at 1088 ; Renard, 261 So.2d at 837 ; Boucher, 102 So.2d at 135 ; Page v. Niagara Chem. | 2 | 2013–2020 |
City and County of San Francisco v. Pacello
green
2 sentences2016For example, in City & County of San Francisco v. Pacello, 85 Cal.App.3d 637 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 705 (1978), the court held that the city could not allow one city department to give the defendant permission to use his property in a certain manner and then turn around eight and a half years later and have a different city department claim that such use was a zoning violation. 2016For example, in City & County of San Francisco v. Pacello, 85 Cal.App.3d 637 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 705 (1978), the court held that the city could not allow one city department to give the defendant permission to use his property in a certain manner and then turn around eight and a half years later and have a different city department claim that such use was a zoning violation. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Trianon Park Condominium v. City of Hialeah
green
1 sentence2013The majority relies upon Trianon Park Condominium Association v. City of Hialeah, 468 So.2d 912 (Fla.1985), for this proposition. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Metropolitan Dade County v. Blumenthal
green
1 sentence2001Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County, 794 So.2d 1270 (Fla.2001); Metropolitan Dade County v. Blumenthal, 675 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), review dismissed, 680 So.2d 421 (Fla.1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Dusseau v. METRO. DADE CO. BD. OF COM'RS
green
1 sentence2001Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County, 794 So.2d 1270 (Fla.2001); Metropolitan Dade County v. Blumenthal, 675 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), review dismissed, 680 So.2d 421 (Fla.1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
City of Dania v. Florida Power & Light
green
1 sentence1999In City of Dania v. Florida Power & Light, 718 So.2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 727 So.2d 905 (1998), we granted certiorari and quashed an opinion of the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity on two grounds: (1) that the circuit court erred in disregarding substantial competent evidence when it quashed the city's decision to deny a zoning exception, and (2) that the circuit court applied the incorrect law, i.e., the wrong burden of proof. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Bd. of Cty. Cpm'rs v. 1st Free Will Baptist Church
green
1 sentence1983Second, while the petitioner may have met the criteria set forth in the Zero Lot Line Ordinance, it was additionally required to satisfy the special exception criteria set forth in Section 33-311(d) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. [3] Board *1170 of County Commissioners of Dade County v. First Free Will Baptist Church, 374 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Hudson v. Tabas
neutral
1 sentence1983Gardner v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 306 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (raising of grade level in claimed violation of zoning ordinance on immediately adjacent property would obstruct plaintiff's view and aggravate risk of flooding in plaintiff's home); Hudson v. Tabas, 136 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (building of addition in claimed violation of zoning ordinance's set-back requirement on contiguous land denied plaintiff right to open space between her home and that of neighbor), need not show an impact unique to their property, that is, "special damage." All that Suero needed to show, and did show, | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State Ex Rel. Gardner v. Sailboat Key, Inc.
green
1 sentence1983Gardner v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 306 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (raising of grade level in claimed violation of zoning ordinance on immediately adjacent property would obstruct plaintiff's view and aggravate risk of flooding in plaintiff's home); Hudson v. Tabas, 136 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (building of addition in claimed violation of zoning ordinance's set-back requirement on contiguous land denied plaintiff right to open space between her home and that of neighbor), need not show an impact unique to their property, that is, "special damage." All that Suero needed to show, and did show, | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Bryan
green
2 sentences1981Bryan, 93 Fla. 415 , 111 So. 801 (Fla.1927). 1981Bryan, 93 Fla. 415 , 111 So. 801 (Fla.1927). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Conrad v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1973On the other hand, in the case of Conrad v. Jackson, Fla. 1958, 107 So.2d 369 , and in the Renard case, supra, the property of the respective plaintiffs was adjoining or adjacent to the property upon which the alleged zoning violation existed, and in each of these cases the court held as a matter of law that the plaintiff suffered a damage differing in kind from the community generally. 1973On the other hand, in the case of Conrad v. Jackson, Fla. 1958, 107 So.2d 369 , and in the Renard case, supra, the property of the respective plaintiffs was adjoining or adjacent to the property upon which the alleged zoning violation existed, and in each of these cases the court held as a matter of law that the plaintiff suffered a damage differing in kind from the community generally. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.