Opinion

Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Polk

  • 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 511
  • 568 So. 2d 35
  • 1990 Fla. LEXIS 1194
  • 1990 WL 141446
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Filed
Sep 27, 1990
Status
Published
Author
Grimes
On the bench
Barkett, Ehrlich, Grimes, Kogan, McDonald, Overton, Shaw
Cited by
25 cases

affirming an award of damages for the *1143 “prospective net revenue” the immature citrus trees would have produced if allowed to reach maturity

How later courts described this case

  • affirming an award of damages for the *1143 “prospective net revenue” the immature citrus trees would have produced if allowed to reach maturity

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

GRIMES, Justice,

concurring.

My review of the record convinces me that the Department of Agriculture did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in ordering the destruction of Polk’s trees. In fact, I share Justice McDonald’s view that this was a reasonable course of action based upon the then-existing knowledge of the experts in the industry. It was only later determined that the threat from this form of canker had been overestimated.

Notwithstanding, I join in the majority opinion because I believe that the state should not be able to destroy a person’s uncontaminated property in order to protect the economic interests of a larger group without the payment of just compensation.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.