Case ID: so2d_243/html/0166-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, Florida, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Herbert J. HUTCHINGS and Rose Hutchings his wife, Francis A. Dickinson and Alma Dickinson, his wife, and Joel R. Mish and Judith Mish, his wife, Appellees.
    No. 70-161.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Jan. 8, 1971.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1971.
    Charles A. Finkel and E. T. Hunter, Asst. City Attys., Hollywood, for appellant.
    George B. Hardie, Jr., South Miami, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the City of Hollywood from a final judgment holding unconstitutional a zoning ordinance as it applies to the real property of the appellees. From our review of the record on appeal, we are satisfied the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and its conclusions in accordance with law. We affirm on the authority of Kugel v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 282 and Manilow v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 589. See also Quattrocchi v. MacVicar, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 873 and Burritt v. Harris, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 820.

As an additional ground for affirmance we are compelled to point out that the appellant has failed to include in the record on appeal numerous items of documentary evidence which from the transcript appear to have been material to the trial court’s decision. - Hence error has not been made to appear.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, REED, and OWEN, JJ., concur.