City of Miami Beach v. the Texas Co.
194 So. 368, 141 Fla. 616 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance enacted under a valid grant of police power may be facially constitutional, yet unconstitutional in its application to a specific property if, under the particular facts, its enforcement would be arbitrary, discriminatory, and confiscatory, thereby depriving the owner of their property without due process of law.
Facts:
- In 1923, The Texas Company began operating a bulk oil plant on Peninsular Island in Miami Beach under a lease agreement.
- In 1930, the City of Miami Beach passed a zoning ordinance that explicitly permitted "Oil and/or gasoline storage tanks" in the district where The Texas Company's plant was located.
- In 1932, The Texas Company sought to purchase and expand its plant, for which it applied for a permit from the City of Miami Beach.
- The City Council of Miami Beach unanimously granted the permit, authorizing The Texas Company to build, enlarge, and construct a new, modern bulk plant.
- In reliance on this permit, The Texas Company purchased the land for $146,323.05 and invested an additional $132,083.27 in constructing the new plant.
- On September 24, 1936, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 446, which made it unlawful to store large quantities of petroleum products within 1,000 feet of any dwelling or building.
- This new ordinance effectively prohibited the continued operation of The Texas Company's plant and made it practically impossible to relocate within the city limits.
Procedural Posture:
- The Texas Company filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida (a court of first instance), seeking to enjoin the City of Miami Beach from enforcing Ordinance No. 446.
- The trial court denied the City's motion to dismiss and granted a temporary injunction restraining enforcement of the ordinance.
- The City of Miami Beach (as appellant) took an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida, which affirmed the trial court's order.
- The case returned to the trial court, which, after taking testimony, entered a final decree making the injunction permanent.
- The City of Miami Beach (as appellant) appealed the final decree to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance, enacted under the city's police power to promote public safety, violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions when its application to a pre-existing, lawfully established business would be arbitrary and confiscatory, even if the ordinance itself is facially constitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. While a municipal ordinance may be facially valid as an exercise of police power, its application to a specific property can be unconstitutional if it is arbitrary, confiscatory, and unreasonable under the circumstances. The court distinguished between the ordinance's facial constitutionality, which it upheld, and its constitutionality 'as applied' to The Texas Company. The Texas Company had lawfully established its business with the city's explicit approval and invested substantial sums of money in reliance on that approval. The court found that the plant was not a nuisance per se or in fact. Therefore, to enforce the ordinance against the company, which would result in the destruction of its business and the loss of its investment without compensation, was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of police power that deprived the company of its property without due process of law. The court affirmed the lower court's injunction but reserved the city's right to enforce the ordinance in the future if changed conditions increased the hazard to the public.
Analysis:
This case is a classic example of an "as-applied" constitutional challenge, establishing that a law's validity can depend on its specific factual application rather than just its text. The decision creates a crucial precedent for protecting vested property rights against subsequent, retroactive government regulation. It shows that courts will balance a municipality's police power against an individual's due process rights, scrutinizing the reasonableness of an ordinance that has a confiscatory effect on a lawful, non-nuisance business established in reliance on prior government approval. This principle limits the government's ability to arbitrarily devalue or destroy property through regulatory changes without providing compensation.
