Burnham v. Monroe County
District Court of Appeal of Florida
738 So.2d 471 (1999)
- Written by Anjali Bhat, JD
Facts
Thomas and Nedra Burnham (plaintiffs) had owned property in Monroe County (defendant) in Florida since 1967. The Burnhams submitted their application for a building permit in 1992, after Monroe County’s rate-of-growth ordinance (ROGO) became effective. Under ROGO, Monroe County allocated building permits only to applicants who had accumulated the most points possible for sustainable-design features. The Burnhams’ construction plans did not qualify for enough points under ROGO to entitle the Burnhams to a building permit. Monroe County repeatedly told the Burnhams that they could obtain a building permit simply by incorporating minor additions into their plans. The Burnhams did not make these changes, however, and instead filed suit, claiming that ROGO had effected a taking by inverse condemnation that was unconstitutional. The trial court held that there was no taking, because Monroe County had not deprived the Burnhams of all beneficial use of the property. The trial court further held that ROGO was constitutional. The Burnhams appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
