Florida
How Bernard v. City of New York applies in Florida: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Property.
In Florida, the principles from Bernard v. City of New York are applied through the lens of nuisance law and governmental immunity. Florida courts often assess whether the state or local government engaged in actionable behavior that constitutes a taking or creates a nuisance.
Under Florida law, to establish a claim for nuisance or inverse condemnation, a property owner must demonstrate that the governmental action led to an unreasonable interference with their right to use and enjoy their property.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that property owners may seek compensation for a diminishing use and enjoyment of their property due to governmental action.
In this case, the court ruled that a city could be liable for damages caused by the implementation of a policy leading to flooding on private properties.
The court held that government immunity does not protect a municipality from liability for damages resulting from business loss caused by an illegal permit denial.
While the federal standard in cases like Bernard emphasizes a direct takings analysis under the Fifth Amendment, Florida law introduces broader interpretations allowing for nuisance claims that consider state constitutional protections. Florida courts are more inclined to recognize property owners’ rights against municipal actions that adversely affect property interests.
Candidates should be familiar with the implications of nuisance and governmental liability as these are often tested within Property Law sections of the Florida Bar Exam.