Oceania Joint Venture v. Ocean View of Miami, Ltd.

707 So. 2d 917 (1998)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Oceania Joint Venture v. Ocean View of Miami, Ltd.

Florida District Court of Appeal
707 So. 2d 917 (1998)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Oceania Joint Venture (Oceania) (plaintiff) appealed an adverse zoning decision from the Dade County Board of County Commissioners (board), an administrative agency, to the Appellate Division of the Dade County Circuit Court (Dade County Appellate Division), which is part of Florida’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Oceania only named Ocean View of Miami, Ltd. (OVM) (defendant) on the appeal; the board was not named on the zoning appeal. OVM moved to dismiss Oceania’s appeal for failure to name an indispensable party. Although the Eleventh Judicial Circuit’s Local Rule 1 stated that appeals from administrative-agency orders must be heard by a three-judge panel, the Dade County Appellate Division dismissed Oceania’s appeal after review by only one judge. Oceania petitioned for a rehearing and was denied. Oceania then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the District Court of Appeal to review the dismissal order. On appeal to the district court, Oceania only asked the district court to rule on whether the board was an indispensable party; Oceania did not raise the issue of the local-rule violation. The district court denied Oceania’s certiorari petition. Oceania then filed a motion for reinstatement of its appeal before the Dade County Appellate Division; in that filing, Oceania raised the issue of the local-rule violation for the first time. A three-judge panel dismissed Oceania’s reinstatement motion as untimely. Oceania again appealed to the District Court of Appeal.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Green, 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 810,000 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 810,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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