HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-79-0116RFC/rb
2/26/79
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
RESOLUTION NO. 7 9- 1 1 6
A RESOLUTION APPROVING, RATIFYING AND CON-
FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
REGARDING THE JOINT EMPLOYMENT OF MICHEL E.
ANDERSON, ESQ. AND JOHN R. FARRELL, ESQ.,
TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF MIAMI IN THE CASE
OF COCONUT GROVE PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL., V.
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, SUPREME COURT CASE NO.
54,557 WITH THE COMPENSATION FOR SAID SERVICES
SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PAYMENT OF $5,000
UNLESS FURTHER AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COMMISSION,
AND WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORK AND FEES
TO BE MUTUALLY DETERMINED BY THE SAID ATTORNEYS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The prior action of the City Attorney
regarding the joint employment of MICHEL E. ANDERSON, ESQ.,
1000 Rivergate Plaza, Miami, Florida 33131, and JOHN R. FARRELL,
ESQ., 2825 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33129, in connec-
tion with representing the City of Miami in the case of Coconut
Grove Properties, Inc. et al. v. City of Miami, Florida, Supreme
Court Case No. 54,557 is hereby approved, ratified and con-
firmed. The fee payable to said attorneys for their legal
services is subject to a maximum payment of $5,000 for
said services, unless further authoirzed by the City Commission,
with the distribution of the work and fees to be mutually deter-
mined by the said attorneys.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26 day of FEBRUARY , 1979.
MAURICE A. FERRE.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
RALP G.
NGIE, CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
ROBERT F. CLARK, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
AP D AS TO FORM
GEOR A F. KNOX, JR.,
ORRECTNESS:
TTORNEY
"DOCUMENTINDEX
ITEM NO.7 ”
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
FEB .J 6 1T79
ry -
RESOLUTION NO.
1 E
REMARKS:. ..... .
or
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER•OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TM The Honorable Members of the
City Commission
PROM:
Ge ge F. Knox, r.
CiAttorney
DATE. February 26, 1979
►iLE:
IUUJECT:
Coconut Grove Marine Properties,
Inc. v. City of Miami
(2550 South Bayshore Drive)
REFERENCED:
ENCLOSURE,:
This is to advi - .0 that the Supreme Court of Florida has granted
jurisdiction to hear an application for constitutional certiorari to
the District Court of Appeal, Third District of Florida, on behalf of
the Petitioners, Coconut Grove Marine Properties, Inc., etc.
As you may recall, this litigation concerns the property located at
2550 South Bayshore Drive which was taken by the City through condemna-
tion for park and recreational facilities. Subsequent to the condemna-
tion proceedings, the Petitioners brought the subject suit challenging
the City's right to lease said property to private business (despite
the fact that said private enterprises were fulfilling a public purpose
by operating marine related businesses on the property). The Trial
Court entered judgment for the Petitioners and the Third District Court
reversed, holding that the use of the property is permissible because
"a governmental authority may constitutionally acquire land by eminent
domain power and then lease the land for commercial use in furtherance
of the public purposes".
This litigation involves several critical issues, the determination of
which will have far reaching effects on the City's activities in many
areas. Due to the serious gravamen of this cause and the short period
of time within which the City is required to file a brief on the merits
with the Supreme Court of Florida, the City Attorney deemed it to be
in the best interests of the City to jointly retain former Assistant
City Attorney Michel E. Anderson and John R. Farrell, Esq. to repre-
sent the City before the Supreme Court in this matter. Mr. Anderson
is thoroughly familiar with the issues and proceedings in this cause
as he was responsible for this case from its inception through the
Appellate Court's reversal and the opinion favoring the City of Miami
in May, 1978. Mr. Farrell's expertise in the field of condemnation
is unquestioned thoroughout the State.
As of this date, no maximum figure for the compensation of these
attorneys has been agreed upon. The distribution of work and fees
will be mutually determined by the said attorneys. The figure of
$5,000 could be regarded as a maximum amount.
GFK/GMM/rb
Resolution Attached
"SUPPORTIVE
OJ
�'1 1 \ 1UV ,�y ! r Y
' U L_ L_
79-116