HomeMy WebLinkAbout2342 4:~aso1
i
IN THE CIRCUi•P COURT OF THE NINETEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CASE NO.: 79-80 CA
ARTHUR DAVIS and CALVIN SMITH, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
)
CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, )
a municipal corporation, et al, ) _
Defendants. )
O R D E R
THIS CAUSE having come on before the Court upon
the Motion to Dismiss of the Defendant, CITY OF FORT PIERCE,
and the Court having considered the same, hearing the argu-
ments of counsel, considering the issues of law, statutory
and case authorities, and being otherwise fully advised in
the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) The Motion to Dismiss is granted, and in so
doing, the Court makes the following findings, conclusions,
and rulings:
(a) That thirty (30) days notice is not
f required to institute this suit against the CITY OF FORT
E
PIERCE;
(b) The Court, in reliance upon The Town of
z
Palm Beach vs. Palm Beach County, 332 So 2d 355 (4th DCA
a
1976), and Tampa Port Authority vs. Deen, 179 So 2d 416
r
(2nd DCA Fla. 1965), does grant the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss based on the fact that the ordinance must be en-
acted by the CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, before there
could be any irreparable damage to the Plaintiffs. The
3 Court finds no authority for it to enjoin a municipality
Y
from the enactment of an ordinance.
}
(c) A claim for attorney's fees will be
considered by the Court if any amended pleading contains
s an allegation that there is a complete absence of a jus-
ticable issue of fact or law.
~ U,..•Qi W1/ t~t.~+rr~/V ~
4
a BRENNAN, McALILEY, HAYSKAR 6 McALILEY, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 519 SOUTH INDIAN RIVER OR., FORT PIERCE, FLA. 33450
r ~