Legal Opinion

Shore v. Steckloff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 11, 1958No. 58-224PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CARROLL, CHAS., Chief Judge.

Appellants, who were plaintiffs below, suffered an adverse decree granted on defendants’ motion for summary final decree.

The defendants are riparian owners of a parcel of bay front land, located on the west shore of Biscayne Bay within the limits of the City of Miami. They sought to fill in the bay bottom in front of their land out to or towards the channel, as allowed to such an owner under the Riparian Rights Act of 1856 and 1921, the latter known as the Butler Act and appearing in Florida Statutes 1955 as section 271.01, F.S.A., reading as follows:

“The State,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Merrill-Stevens Co. v. DurkeeSupreme Court of Florida · 1911
  2. State Ex Rel. Cochran v. LewisSupreme Court of Florida · 1935
  3. Apgar v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1928

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Etc. v. The Village of North Palm Beach, Florida, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1972
  2. Brown, Leblanc-Simard v. Thomas, ThomasDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2025
  3. City of Miami v. SteckloffDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1959
  4. State, Ex Rel. Harris v. City of MiamiSupreme Court of Florida · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API