Another recent 2d DCA case - Johnson Services vs. Pinellas County, reinforces that access rights from property to roadways are appurtenant rights and are protected by the due process clause.
Pinellas County curbed off two of four access points into the Plaintiff's service station, without notice or opportunity to be heard or to contest the action. When Johnson's Services sued under s. 1983 in state court, claiming that the County violated due process guarantees, the County defended by claiming that the plaintiffs had no "property" in the accesses and therefore no due process rights.
The County argued that because there had not been a substantial diminution in value to the land as a whole - a 5th amendment takings analysis - there had been no deprivation of "property" and therefore no due process violation. [note- I understand from Dave Smolker that FDOT has been making the same argument for years in its access management program implementation.] This argument was rejected by the 2d DCA as fundamentally flawed. Access rights are appurtenant property rights under Florida law and therefore are property interests protected by the due process clause.
One can hope that this case points to the day when the courts stop the pretense that there are no 14th amendment due process-protected property interests in "unvested" building permits, site plans and other development orders or environmental permits. The extension of McKinney v Pate (and the post-Roth cases) that deal with statutorily created employment and welfare rights to the property realm, where the ability to use property consistent with law has been held to be a valid property interest since common-law days, is one of those bad ideas that create complacent regulators and lawyers - not a good thing whether you're a developer or a citizen activist (or anyone in between).
The case - Johnson Services v Pinellas - is attached below. BTW - this is another case that my friend Dave Smolker argued.
Johnson Services v. Pinellas County
Use the largest online attorney directory to quickly find detailed profiles of Florida lawyers and law firms in your area.
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Sheesh, does anyone have any news of any interest? Does it count that I saw Ervin rockin' some hard-core aviators outside the courthous...
-
That old W.C. Fields line is ringing in my head, as the wind kicks up and rip tides batter the coast. I have to be honest, with the emerging...
-
Federal Rule Violation If you have been charged with USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290...
-
Here's an interesting opinion from Magistrate Judge Torres awarding defendants attorney's fees for opposing a copyright infringemen...
-
11th Circuit, 11th Schmircuit, that's what I always say. And I see I'm not alone. On Friday in the closely-watched Checking Overdraf...
-
The Second District Court, in Pierce v. Pierce, affirmed a finding of contempt and rejected an argument that the lower tribunal should have...
-
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled today in Tullier v. Tullier , affirming the lower court’s modification of timesharing for the Form...
-
Our friend Glenn continues to pretend he's a lawyer, except now he's a top-notch US Attorney taking pot shots at the prosecutorial...
-
Hi folks, lots of fun stories floating around today. First, as anyone working at a big firm knows, conflicts checks are a real hassle. Just ...
-
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday in Zambuto v. Zambuto , reversing the lower court’s ruling on two grounds. The District...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét