Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Jones v. Chiles
No. 85,932 (Fla. Sup. Ct. filed July 4, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 46609
Description
Prospective Lessors of State-Owned Submerged Land Challenge County’s Refusal to Approve Leases
Abstract
Petitioners have filed their brief on appeal to the Florida Supreme
Court in this action challenging respondent county’s refusal
to approve leases of submerged land. Petitioners were participants
in a Job Training Partnership Act program created to retrain and
employ displaced and unemployed oyster workers. The program
certified petitioners to engage in aquaculture farming. After
successfully completing it, petitioners applied for one-acre leases
of submerged land in Apalachicola Bay. Respondent county objected
to each of the lease applications, thereby thwarting
petitioners’ efforts to obtain leases. On judicial review,
the trial court granted respondent’s motion for summary
judgment, and petitioners appealed. Affirming, the appellate court
held that the state law giving counties veto power over solely
state-owned property is constitutional. The court found that (1)
the submerged lands in question were in the county; (2) noncharter
counties such as respondent county had broad legislative powers
under state law; and (3) counties were free to exercise legislative
powers that the legislature had delegated to them. On appeal to the
supreme court, petitioners argue that unlawful delegation of
legislative authority prohibits a legislative grant of unfettered
power to noncharter counties to deny access to the state’s
natural resources, notwithstanding constitutional and statutory
home-rule provisions.
