Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc.

863 So. 2d 195 (2003)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc.

Florida Supreme Court
863 So. 2d 195 (2003)

Facts

Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. (Omnipoint) (defendant) filed an unusual-use zoning exception application with the Miami-Dade County (Miami-Dade) (plaintiff) zoning board to build a telecommunications tower in an area zoned for limited business use. At a hearing before the zoning board, ample evidence was presented in support of Omnipoint’s exception application; local homeowners opposed the construction for largely aesthetic reasons. The zoning board denied Omnipoint’s application. Omnipoint filed a certiorari petition with the appellate division of the circuit court contesting the denial. Neither Omnipoint nor Miami-Dade raised issues regarding procedural due process, and Omnipoint did not challenge the constitutionality of Miami-Dade’s zoning regulations. The circuit court reversed the zoning board’s denial, holding that (1) the denial was unsupported by the evidence; and (2) violated the federal Telecommunication Act’s prohibition barring discrimination among telecommunications companies providing equivalent services. Miami-Dade appealed to the district court, arguing that the circuit court’s ruling did not apply the correct law. On appeal, the district court affirmed the circuit court’s decision but did so on different grounds. The district court, of its own volition, held that Miami-Dade’s zoning regulations for unusual-use exceptions were unconstitutional because the regulations lacked sufficient objective applicability criteria. Miami-Dade appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the district court’s ruling exceeded the allowable scope of second-tier certiorari review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bell, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership