# Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Polk

> Supreme Court of Florida · September 27, 1990 · 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 511

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7586201

## Case

- **Full name:** DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. Richard O. POLK, etc., Appellee/Cross-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** September 27, 1990
- **Citations:** 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 511; 568 So. 2d 35; 1990 Fla. LEXIS 1194; 1990 WL 141446
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Grimes
- **Judges:** Barkett, Ehrlich, Grimes, Kogan, McDonald, Overton, Shaw
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7586201

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7586201. Public record. Not legal advice.