Alger v. United States of America
Landowners sought second-tier certiorari after the circuit court appellate division quashed a City of Homestead resolution declaring their vested rights to develop land in an accident potential zone near Homestead Air Reserve Base, arguing the United States lacked standing to challenge the resolution. The Third District denied the petition, holding that the circuit court afforded due process and applied the correct law under Renard v. Dade County in finding the United States, as HARB proprietor, had a legally recognizable interest adversely affected by the resolution. The court refused the landowners' invitation to apply de novo review to standing on second-tier certiorari.
Key facts
- Landowners sought second-tier certiorari review after a circuit court appellate division quashed a City of Homestead resolution that declared their vested rights to develop property in an accident potential zone near Homestead Air Reserve Base.
- The United States, as proprietor of the Air Reserve Base, challenged the resolution claiming the landowners lacked vested development rights; the circuit court appellate division agreed and quashed the resolution.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion is a useful citation for resisting attempts to smuggle de novo review into second-tier certiorari — it expressly distinguishes Matheson v. Miami-Dade County (direct appeal, de novo standing review) from the… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.