Case ID: so2d_181/html/0163-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ROBERTS, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, a Municipal Corporation, Byron Winn, Alan Sutherland, Edwin Turlington, James G. Richardson and Howard McKinney, as and constituting the Members of the City Commission of the City of Gainesville, Florida, T. G. Henley, as Building Inspector of the City of Gainesville, Florida, and W. T. Green, Jr., as City Manager of the City of Gainesville, Florida, Petitioners, v. Wilbur BISHOP, individually and as Agent, and American Oil Company, a corporation, Respondents.
    No. 34335.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Dec. 15, 1965.
    Osee R. Fagan and Fagan, Crouch & Anderson, Gainesville, for petitioners.
    William B. Watson, Jr., Watson & Long, Winston E. Arnow and Clayton, Arnow, Duncan, Johnston, Clayton & Quincey, Gainesville, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District. City of Gainesville et al. v. Bishop et al., 174 So.2d 100.

Our initial consideration of the matter suggested a prima facie jurisdictional conflict between the decision under review and prior decisions of this Court on the same point of law. We have heard arguments on both jurisdiction and merits. On further careful consideration of the record and briefs, we have concluded that no jurisdictional conflict of decisions is present. We, therefore, find that the writ was improvidently issued and it is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW, O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, J., dissents with opinion.

ERVIN, J., dissents and agrees with ROBERTS, J.

ROBERTS, Justice

(dissenting).

In my opinion the court does have jurisdiction. The basic defense was one of es-toppel and the decision of the trial court, in disposing of the case by summary judgment without a trial of issues, was error. “One who invokes the doctrine of estoppel must show that he has been misled by the conduct of the other party.” Singletary v. Mann, 157 Fla. 37, 24 So.2d 718, 166 A.L.R. 904. Investment in the property was made with red flags flying all around, and I fail to find any evidence or indication that the investors were misled or deceived. I would quash the decision here under review with directions that it reverse the summary judgment entered by the trial court and allow the cause to proceed to a trial of the issues involved. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

ERVIN, J., concurs.