
    ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. Dan F. MICKLER et al., Respondents.
    No. 40490.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 21, 1971.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1971.
    William L. Durden and Fred H. Kent, Jr., of Kent, Durden & Kent, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
    Willard Howatt, St. Augustine, and Del-bridge L. Gibbs, of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, Jacksonville, for respondents other than Harold M. Wayne.
    Harold M. Wayne, in pro. per.
    Benjamin K. Phipps, Tallahassee, for the Tax Assessors Association of Florida, ami-cus curiae.
    John E. Norris, of Brannon, Brown, Norris, Vocelle & Haley, Lake City, for Florida Forestry Association, Inc., amicus curiae.
    Edward J. McCarthy, Jr., Jacksonville, for Container Corp. of America, amicus curiae.
   PER CURIAM.

The decision under review is quashed and the cause remanded under the authority of Conrad v. Sapp, filed July 14, 1971, 252 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971) and for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion in the District Court, 241 So.2d 415, with directions to enter a judgment extending “agricultural zoning” to the land involved.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents with opinion.

DEKLE, Justice

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent on authority of Greenwood v. Oates, 251 So.2d 665 (Fla.1971), and Conrad v. Sapp, 252 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971). We there established that in cases of disputed facts the granting or denying of the beneficial “agricultural” classification by the taxing authorities, and any court review thereof, are to be based upon the particular facts of each case under applicable standards (criteria); that the determination arrives in this Court with a presumption of correctness (under this well-established rule); and that the decision will be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence. This case is supported by competent, substantial evidence, as were Greenwood and Sapp. It should be affirmed.

Accordingly, I would uphold the discretion here exercised by the Agricultural Zoning Board, by the able Circuit Judge and then by the First District Court of Appeal in denying the agricultural zoning which petitioner sought.  