State Road Department v. White
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- System Components Corp. v. Florida Deparment of Transportation (Fla. 2009)
- Gateway Growers v. School Bd. of Palm Beach (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
- Blockbuster Video v. State, Dot (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
- K-Mart Corp. v. ST. DEPT. OF TRANSP. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
- In re McAtee (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Florida 1993)
- Gellman v. Eden Point South Ass'n (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
- Pinellas County v. Brown (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
- Williams v. Jones (Fla. 1975)
- Dade County v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Fla. 1973)
- Carter v. State Road Department (Fla. 1966)
- Pensacola Scrap Processors, Inc. v. State Road Dept. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
- State Road Department v. Thibaut (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT of Florida, an agency of the State of Florida, and Orange County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioners,
v.
Bertha WHITE et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Florida.
*829 Robert D. Canada, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Sam E. Murrell & Sons, Orlando, for James R. Lang, respondent.
CALDWELL, Justice
This cause is here on Petition for Writ of Certiorari alleging conflict between the decision herein[1] and that of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Gross v. Ruskin.[2] The reported opinion in the Gross case does not disclose the facts but the statement that (in condemnation) damages for loss of business "are not recoverable by a lessee" is at odds with the language of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in the opinion herein. We refer to the latter opinion for the essential facts, circumstances and relative citations.
We have concluded the District Court of Appeal properly held in this cause that a lessee for a term of years is, for the purpose of the statute,[3] an owner and, as such, is entitled to recover business damages under the provisions thereof, any holding of Gross, supra, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Respondent questions whether a terminal Sunday can be excluded in computing the time for filing notice of appeal under F.S. § 73.14, F.S.A. The point has been settled adversely to Respondent's contention by the recent opinion of this Court in Dade County Planning Department vs. Ransing, 158 So.2d 528.
The Writ of Certiorari is discharged.
ROBERTS, Acting C.J., HOBSON (Ret.), J., and WALKER, Circuit Judge, concur.
THORNAL, J., dissents.
NOTES
[1] 148 So.2d 32 (Fla.App.2nd 1962).
[2] 133 So.2d 759 (Fla.App.3rd 1961).
[3] Fla. Stat. § 73.10(4), F.S.A.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.