Lopez-Brignoni v. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services
In the long-running Miami-Dade citrus canker class action, the Third District reversed a post-bench-trial judgment that had found the Department not liable for inverse condemnation. The court held the trial court violated the law of the case by adopting dissenting opinions from the prior class-certification appeal and rejecting the homeowners' replacement-cost valuation methodology, and erred in treating healthy residential citrus trees as a public nuisance under Polk, which Patchen held inapplicable. On cross-appeal, the court affirmed partial summary judgment establishing a private cause of action for additional compensation under section 581.1845, and remanded for a 12-person jury trial on compensation.
Key facts
- Homeowners whose residential citrus trees were destroyed by the Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services during a citrus canker eradication program sued for inverse condemnation and sought compensation beyond the statutory $55-per-tree amount.
- The trial court found the Department not liable after a bench trial, adopting reasoning from dissenting opinions in a prior class-certification appeal and treating healthy trees as a public nuisance.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a forceful application of the law of the case doctrine: a trial judge cannot sidestep an appellate holding (even one announced in an interlocutory class-certification appeal) by embracing the dissent… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
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.