Case Name: TWELVE-TWELVE CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. R. R. (Bob) WALDEN, as Tax Assessor of Hillsborough County, Florida, Anthony Schleman, as Tax Collector of Hillsborough County, Florida, and Fred O. Dickinson, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1970-03-11
Citations: 233 So. 2d 194
Docket Number: Nos. 69-304, 69-305
Parties: TWELVE-TWELVE CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. R. R. (Bob) WALDEN, as Tax Assessor of Hillsborough County, Florida, Anthony Schleman, as Tax Collector of Hillsborough County, Florida, and Fred O. Dickinson, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellees.
Judges: LILES, A. C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 233
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
TWELVE-TWELVE CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. R. R. (Bob) WALDEN, as Tax Assessor of Hillsborough County, Florida, Anthony Schleman, as Tax Collector of Hillsborough County, Florida, and Fred O. Dickinson, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellees.
Nos. 69-304, 69-305.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
March 11, 1970.
Rehearing Denied April 14, 1970.
William E. Thompson and Paul Kickliter, Tampa, for appellant.
William Terrell Hodges of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellee, tax assessor.
John W. McWhirter of Cason, Hawkins, McWhirter & Henderson, Tampa, for ap-pellees, tax collector and comptroller.

Opinion:
McNULTY, Judge.
Appellant brought suit to contest the validity of the assessment of its properties in Hillsborough County. It directly appeals from an adverse judgment.
Appellant's main complaint is the method of assessment, i. e., the "block method", used by appellee Tax Assessor in assessing the subject property. However, the record is replete with evidence from which the court could, and manifestly did, find that the "block method" is an acceptable and recognized technique of evaluating properties for taxation purposes; and appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court erred in rejecting appellant's contention that its suggested method of evaluation was not employed instead of the method used in fact.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is, affirmed.
Affirmed.
LILES, A. C. J., concurs.
PIERCE, J., dissents.
. G. /., R. H. James, Inc. et al. v. Anderson et al. (Fla.App.2d 1964), 165 So.2d 829; and Osborn v. Yeager (Fla.App.2d 1963), 155 So.2d 742.