Cases Flashcards
What type of business damage is specifically NOT avail in a bus dmg claim?
CASES ----------- Interest. ----------- MJ Stavola. b/c it's statute created.
CASES ----------- What case taught us the value of having written procurement policies? ----------- How was that lesson learned?
Baxter.
———–
Baxter showed he was responsible at time of protest.
LG said responsibility should have been shown when submitting bid.
No written policy, so the Court sided w/ bidder.
What are the 2 requirements of tort claim notice under 768.28(6)(a)?
CASES ----------- 1) Writing 2) Assert a claim. ----------- Wilson v. City of Tampa, 209 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
What does court require from PL in a public records lawsuit in order to make LG show cause?
CASES ----------- A copy of the request. ----------- Scott (2021)
1983
Public official can be liable because why?
CASES ----------- PO has FINAL decision making authority ----------- US Supreme Court in Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati - custom or policy for a single decision of muni official
What has the 11th circuit said about immunity in 1983?
CASES ----------- Only in exceptional cases will govt. actors have no shield against claims made against them in their individual capacities. ----------- Frausto vs. Picklo
4th
State 4 elements & 1 important fact, re: inverse condemnation.
CASES ----------- 1) Enters for more than a momentary period; 2) under the color of legal authority; 3) devotes it to a public use, or 4) otherwise affects it in as to oust. ----------- Judge (not jury) decides all. ----------- TLC Props —————- ALSO, from Duck Seafarer, there are 2 types (1) Physical & (2) Regulatory.
CASES ----------- Court of Appeals on appeal of a writ of cert. A) What 2 things can they consider? B) What can they not consider? C) Quote. D) Case.
A) Procedural due process + correct law.
————
B) Subst. competent evidence.
———–
C) Courts of appeal are not “legal potted palms.”
———–
D) Auerbach v. City of Miami, 929 So.2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
What 2 new things did I learn about the applicability of sovereign immunity depending on the origin of certain types of claims?
(1) No sov. imm. for STATUTORY CLAIMS. Ex. the right to sue for Retaliatory Discharge OF AN OMBUDSMAN (only) is a STATUTORY CLAIM, not a tort!!!
———–
(2) Waiver must be CLEAR & UNEQUIVOCAL
———–
State of FL, Dept. of Elder Affairs v. Caldwell, 199 So. 3d 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
CASES ----------- What 3 things have we learned from cases on muni's extra pwrs? ----------- Name the 4 cases.
FL Sup Ct has upheld extraterritorial powers, particularly re:
-1- proprietary projects,
-2- by municipalities
-3- where such powers are supported by or derived from a legislative grant.
———–
See:
State v. Town of Riviera Beach, 397 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1981);
State v. City of Pensacola, 197 So. 520 (Fla. 1940); Town of Palm Beach v. City of West Palm Beach, 239 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) and
City of Ocala v. Red Oak Farm, Inc., 636 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Once & for all -
Can a private individual be sued under 42 USC 1983?
YES - if acted under color of law.
ME- the indiv HAS TO BE NAMED INDIVIDUALLY b/c if name in official capacity it is a suit vs. LG.
If sue LG & indiv in official capacity = redundant .
———–
Foshee v. Health Management
If there is both lawful motive & an assumed BMW motive, does POPE get sov imm?
YES! if ADEQUATE lawful motive.
———–
“When an adequate lawful motive is present,
even an assumed fact that an unlawful, retaliatory motive also exists does not preclude qualified
immunity.”
———–
Wall-DeSousa v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 691 F. App’x 584, 591 (11th Cir. 2017)
CASES ----------- Is LG's decision to allocate PD during festival protected by Sov Imm? ----------- Why?
Yes - protected b/c that is a discretionary decision.
———–
Sanchez v. Miami-Dade County, 245 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 3rd DVA 2018)
CASES ----------- What must court specifically do to make a tort sov. imm. claim appealable? ----------- Name the case. —————- Identify the 3 similar rules.
Updated in 2020
No longer must t/c find LG not entitled to sovereign immunity as a matter of law. Now, denial of LG’s motion based on sovereign immunity is sufficient.
———–
FHP v Jackson, 288 So. 3d 1179 ( Fla. 2020).
———-
#1) PR - Judge must find that LG unlawfully withheld records.
#2) SJ new - Judge shall state reasons for decision.
& Now -
#3) Sovereign Immunity new - Non-final order is appealable regardless of whether or not Judge stated that LG is or is not entitled to sovereign immunity as a matter of law.
What do you say when your LG has proposed crazy exactions to Applicant Developer?
CASES ----------- LG’s demands upon a land-use permit applicant- (1) must satisfy the requirements of Nollan and Dolan i.e. nexus (2) even when LG denies the permit & (3) even when its demand is for money. ----------- Koontz
Is Commercial Speech easier to control? Why or why not?
Traditionally use more lenient ‘intermediate scrutiny’ test but International Outdoor v. City of Troy says that if Commercial Sign is CONTENT BASED, use STRICT SCRUTINY (“SCIRT”) analysis.
———–
You can’t treat commercial signs differently based on content.
———-
>but easier to control private speech, what gives?
CP ----------- LG Decisions Under CP - Support ----------- BONUS - name a case for the 3 prong QJ review.
fairly debatable + pub purp
———-
Courts do not disturb if some use consistent with the plan is allowed and the decision is supported by competent substantial evidence.
———–
BOCC Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993).
———–
(1) Comp subs evid., (2) proper due process, (3) correct law = Brevard v Snyder
What is the standard for evaluating a competitive procurement award?
LG’s ordinance.
- see Emerald v. Bay County.
What 3 new things did I learn about the applicability of sovereign immunity depending on the origin of certain types of claims?
1) It doesn’t apply & why.
2) It does apply & what that gets PL.
3) What courts look for to determine if Sov. Imm. waiver applies.
(1) For STATUTORY CLAIMS, look for clear & unequivocal waiver. No such waiver in ombudsman statute. Thus, LG is protected by sovereign immunity.
Ex. interfering w/ ombudsman 400.0083(3)(a) is a STATUTORY CLAIM for retaliation, not a tort!!!
———–
(2) Retaliatory discharge IS A TORT w/ 4 yr S/L & emtl dmgs + partial waiver of sov. imm. (200/300), ex. worker’s comp. see Scott v. Otis Elevator, 524 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1988)
———–
(3) Waiver must be CLEAR & UNEQUIVOCAL
———–
State of FL, Dept. of Elder Affairs v. Caldwell, 199 So. 3d 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
Does mass casualty event arise out of the same incident or occurrence, thus limiting all claimants to 200/300 cap?
CASES ----------- Yes. ----------- DFS v. Barnett, 303 Sp. 3d 508 (Fla 2020).
CASES ----------- Sports Stadium bond issue. ----------- 3 step validation review.
1) AUTHORITY to issue
-a- 125.01
-b- 166.111 capital ‘or other’
2) PURPOSE is legal
-a- public purp? econ dev - 125.045
-b- if buying/leasing cd argue need to bid but econ dev = exception, no collusion
-c- cd argue private benefit but incidental okay.
Once the stadium is deemed to be for a public purpose, the Court need not micromanage the terms of the lease.
3) Issuance COMPLIES w/ law.
-a- sales/tdt/occupational tax = revenue bond = no referendum
———–
~confirmed. Rowe v. Pinellas, 461 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1984).
ESSAY ----------- Sports Stadium bond issue. ----------- State 5 arguments to be made after validating a sports stadium bond issue.
1) Property shd have been competitively bid.
> no, econ dev = exception
———–
2) LG is essentially ‘gifting’ land to corp.
> no, pub purp prevails.
———–
3) LG is promising zoning
> shd be noted in lease no promises
———–
4) lending its credit.
> use tax money for pub purp, incidental private
———–
5) Should have had a referendum on bond.
> not if sales/tdt/occupational tax b/c has no impact on AV.
———–
Rowe v. Pinellas, 461 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1984).
Name a test worthy situation where Bus dmgs are not available to a BO, beside the eligibility criteria.
LG takes business, leaves parking lot/storage bldgs/submerged, i.e., the remainder seeking bus dmg is not where the business was located.
———–
Why?
b/c business must be “solicited, accepted, or conducted” on remainder.
———–
State DOT v. Standard Oil Co., 510 So.2d 324 (2nd Cir. 1987)
Are FCRA claims subject to sov. imm. cap?
TORTS ----------- De Sisito's FCRA de Sov Immuno. ----------- Yes. ----------- City of Delray Beach v. DeSisto, 197 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 20
• Developer designed & and built city attraction.
• •
• Developer specializes in managing facilities.
Can you include property management in the competitively negotiated turn-key project solicitation?
• No. ~CAN’T TACK IN ON!!!~
Comp bidding & comp negotiation = diff.
———–
Competitively negotiate for professional services.
Property mgt k is not professional services.
———–
Miami Marinas Ass’n v. City of Miami, 408 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
Brush up on:
American Engineering and Development Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 20 So. 3d 1000
(Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
City of Sweetwater v. Solo Const. Corp., 823 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA
2002)
Emerald Correctional Management v. Bay County Bd. of County Comrs., 955 So. 2d 647 (Fla
1st DCA 2007
Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA
1978)
Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 606
So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992),
SOV. IMM. ----------- Is Clerk entitled to sov. imm. if it fails to redact a record? ----------- Why or why not?
YES.
———–
Based on separation of powers & clerk acting as a n arm of the judicial branch, & not the legislative.
———–
Clerk of Collier County v. Doe, 292 So.3d 1254 (Fla 2nd DCA 2020)
State the 4 part test to wh/ LG gets sov. imm.
the Sovereign Programs its Essential workers then Judges w/ Authority.
————
1) Does act involve a govt policy, program or objective?
2) Is act essential to that p, p, o?
3) Does it involve exercise of judgment?
4) Does LG possess authority & duty to make that act?
State the 5 part step to analyzing wh/ sov. imm. applies.
2) I.D. Duty. ex. provide security
—
3) I.D. wh/ LG gets sov. imm.
—
4) Duty & sov. imm. shall not be conflated. Duty does not render sov. imm. inapplicable.
———–
SB of Broward v. McCall, 322 So.3d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
—
5) 4 part test [does act involve govt objective? essential to objective? involve exercise of jmt? LG possesses authority & duty to make that act?]
Regarding sovereign immunity, state
(1) Any prerequisite to the new jurisdiction of C/A to review T/C decision;
(2) 2 other claims identically affected & 2 that are opposite; &
(3) The breadth of what C/A can review.
New C/A juris to consider T/C decision on the issue of sovereign immunity:
(1) No longer requires t/c to state that LG not entitled to sovereign immunity “as a matter of law”;
—-
(2) Qualified immunity + immunity of LEO causing a crash in pursuit [no reckless disregard, per policy & forceable felony @ 768.28(9)].
—-
BUT -
(a) Public Records, T/C must find LG UNLAWFULLY withheld public records &
(b) SJ - T/C shall provide its reasonings for its decision on MSJ.
—————-
(3) Allows not just a review of the challenged ORDER denying sov. imm. but also the MOTION adjudicated.
———–
Previously juris focused on 4 corners of challenged ORDER.
———–
City of Sweetwater v. Pichardo, 314 So.3d 540 (FL 3rd DCA 2020)
EMPLYMT ----------- Can a person be dismissed for testifying in response to a subpoena? --- If fired, does sov. imm. protect LG?
EMPLYMT ------------ Cannot fire. Enjoys sov. imm. ----------- FS 92.57 - (a) Says can't dismiss employee for testifying. (b) Does not contain a waiver of sov. imm. Can't link it to 768.28. ------------ FFWC v. Hahr, 2021.
Sheriff failure to train has 2 claims:
1) Liab under 42 USC 1983 for deprivation of DP under 14th Amend.
2) Negligence.
———–
Set forth the 5 part test for the Federal claim.
1) PL is entitled to some const rt (ex med care). Wants to hold LG liab under 1983 for violation of rights under Due Process Clz of 14th Amend.
- ———-
2) DP under 14th - deprive L,L,P w/o dp
- ———-
3) 1983 - Person depriving another of constitutional rights under color of law.
- ———–
4) LG
(a) “person” under 1983
(b) not be liab on respondeat superior.
(c) liab only when policy or custom inflicts injury.
- ———-
5) Policy
(a) express, widespread practice, final policy making authority, i.e., deliberate choice of LG,
(b) constructive knowledge, thus showing indifference
(c) cz of injury.
Sheriff failure to train has 2 claims:
1) Liab under 42 USC 1983 for deprivation of DP under 14th Amend.
2) Negligence.
———–
Set forth the 6 part test for the Negligence.
[re]TRAIN the Duty to Construct Correct WIFI
———–
1. Duty reas care in train.
2. Actual/construc knwlg of need for diff training.
3. Unreas failed to take corrective act.
4. Injured by EE’s indep wrongful act.
5. Indep wrongful act = foreseeable.
6. Unreas failure corrective act = cz of injury.
EMPLMT LIAB ----------- Can indiv be fired for testifying pursuant to a subpoena? ----------- What are the 2 things specifically exempted from LG employer scrutiny? ----------- What 2 remedies? ----------- Does Sov. Imm. apply?
NO - FS 92.57. ----------- (1) Nature of the testimony or (2) Absences. ----------- AF & punis. ----------- YES, statute does not expressly waive sov. imm. ----------- FFWC v. Hahr, 2021
When is a complaint initiating an investigation into public official’s mismanagement of funds exempt?
To qualify for exemption:
1) Received by a local official
2) Re; gross mismanagement, waste of public funds or neglect of duty, and
3) Investigation is active AT TIME REQUEST MADE.
Are whistleblower complaints exempt?
Yes UNTIL investigation is no longer active.
What if records are maintained on a private website?
Regardless, the documents were received in connection with the transaction of official business by an agency, they are public records.
Are private entity’s records exempt?
Yes, normally.
———–
But not if reviewed & used in course of public agency’s business.
Here, used by attys for FSU, public agency, & in the course of the agency’s business.
———–
NCAA has failed to show that a State or Fed exception applies so disclose.
How wd IT testing overall be viewed under public records law?
If there is a substantial policy need for disclosure, release of exempt info for purposes of cyber security wd not be inconsistent w/ the purpose of the exemption.
When can LG allow a Ktor access to confidential records (soc sec #s) for purposes of testing security?
Yes if:
Testing is for adminis of pension funds within the meaning of the social security number exemption in s. 119.071(5),
If so then:
Incidental disclosure Vendor w/ confid agmt = does not violate Ch. 119.
How much must be attached to a complaint for writ of mandamus?
When a complaint seeks a writ directed to a lower court or to a governmental or administrative agency, a copy of as much of the record as is necessary to support the plaintiff’s complaint must be attached
What must a complaint for a writ of mandamus contain?
SCOTT (2021)
(1) Facts on which the PL relies,
(2) Request for the relief sought; and
(3) If desired, argument in support of the complaint with citations of authority.
What does court require from PL in a public records lawsuit in order to make LG show cause?
A copy of the request.
Must LG produce records in a specifically requested format?
Yes if maintained in that format.
If computer system purges a PR request, is LG still deemed to have violated the PR laws? AF?
Yes + yes, AF b/c failed to ‘acknowledge’ the request.
Is case management order sufficient for court to hold PR hearing?
No.
Case mgmt put parties on notice of scheduling, not the conduct of an evidentiary hearing.
Can exempt records change their status once disclosed to public?
No!
Audit reports are exempt until finalized.
Participant in audit disclosed draft audit.
County still cannot produce the records b/c they remain exempt.
Does PL get AF if court finds the records requested were public?
——————
What are the2 similar rules. are: appellate review?
—————-
What is the single rule made different by amendment to FRAP 1.310 in 2020?
No!
Order must say that LG unlawfully refused to provide access to PRs.
——————
Much alike:
#1) PR - Judge finds “unlawfully withheld.”
#2) SJ - Judge shall state reasons for decision.
—————-
#3) Sovereign Immunity - non-final order is appealable & Matter-of-Law is NO LONGER REQUIRED to be expressly stated by lower court. Ex. Denial of LG’s motion for SJ is sufficient.
What must be included in Court order to get AF for PR violation?
Finding that LG unlawfully refused to provide access to public records.
Can a writ of mandamus be appropriate vehicle for redress of a public records violation?
Yes.
State the surprising reason transcript of a shade meeting, re: atty statements could be exempt.
If part of “mediation communication.” Ex. #1 - FLUEDRA.
Ex. #2 - Ch 44.102(3) mediation communications & writings (except settlement agmt) are exempt from Ch. 119.
Are communications by Water District’s atty made during shade mtg, re: court ordered mediation exempt?
EVERGLADES (2019) ----------- Yes, redact. ----------- ~I MISS A LOT.~
Are visitor logs that show what psychiatrist visited Def, possibly revealing his trial strategy/work product exempt?
No - public.
If legislature wants them exempt, it will have to provide an exemption.
Are prisoner phone call recordings exempt?
No, not exempt.
Reviewing the records for security is official business,
But keeping calls of juveniles awaiting trial w/ their parents was not.
Cruz also said jail log showing psychiatrist visit (revealing legal strategy) is public record, no exemption,
Are jail visitor logs exempt?
Are phone logs exempt?
CRUZ (2019) ----------- No - public. —- But when minors spoke on phone with parents, Court said such records are not part of security activity.
State 4 criteria of what makes a doc PR.
NCAA (2010)
a) All material regardless of form
b) Made or received re: transaction of off business
c) By LG or Ktor “acting on behalf ”
d) Used to perpetuate, communicate, or formalize knowledge.
What is the standard for evaluating a competitive procurement award if LG has no ordinance?
Arbitrary & capricious.
- see Emerald v. Bay County.
May a response be modified post-submittal?
NO - see Emerald v. Bay County.
What is the standard for evaluating a competitive procurement award if LG has no ordinance?
———–
May a response be modified post-submittal?
SOLICITATIONS ----------- Arbitrary & capricious. - see Emerald v. Bay County. ----------- NO - see Emerald v. Bay County.
What is LEO Employer’s escape from liab for fleer in pursuit?
CASES ----------- Wrecked-Reckless, RR - PP-FF —————-Reckless Regard” “Per Policy” “Forceable Felony” —————— Employer of LEO not resp for personal inj, prop dmg or death czed by fleer if: 1) Pursuit not so reckless as to be disregard of H, S, & W; 2) @ initiation, Officer reas believe fleer committed forcible felony. 3) Pursuit pursuant to policy. ----------- 768.28(9) Ross v. Jax
Name 3 things to state a Prima Facie Case for ER’s retaliatory action under the FL Worker’s Comp. Act.
Must the retaliation be the sole reason for the adverse action?
Employer of LEO not resp for personal inj, prop dmg or death czed by fleer if:
1) Pursuit not so reckless as to be disregard of H, S, & W;
2) @ initiation, Officer reas believe fleer committed forcible felony.
3) Pursuit pursuant to policy.
———–
768.28(9) Ross v. Jax
Are FCRA claims subject to sov. imm. cap?
Unlike what other 2 causes of action?
Yes. There is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity under FCRA because LG is defined as an “employer.”
———–
City of Delray Beach v. DeSisto, 197 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
——————
Unlike USERRA & 92.57 (LG firing employee for testifying pursuant to a subpoena). Both causes of action are dismissed entirely.
Sheriff in pursuit crashes a 3rd party. What 3 things wd you argue to win SJ?
1) Act not so reckless to constitute disregard for HWS
2) Acting in accord w/ written policy.
3) Officer had reason to believe fleeing vehicle committed a forcible felony.
———–
Ross v. City of Jax, 274 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
State 2 case law imposed aspects of Sov Imm & Ks.
CASES
1) Can be sued in K - Davis v. Bayez.
2) K must be written - Ft Lauder v. Israel.
What did Blumenthal say?
CASES ----------- When reviewing a QJ decision, Appellate Ct is limited to: 1) Correct law applied. 2) Procedural DP afforded. ----------- Miami Dade v. Blumenthal
What case said:
When reviewing a QJ decision, Appellate Ct is limited to:
1) Correct law applied.
2) Procedural DP afforded.
3) Competent subst evid.
Q = correct, pro, competent & Blu me away
———–
Metro Dade v. Blumenthal.
———–
*confirmed 675 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
What 4 things did Brevard v. Snyder say?
(1) rezoning action as to an individual is QJ & subject to strict scrutiny on cert rvw;
(2) If O demonstrating proposed use is consistent with CP is not presumptively entitled to such use;
(3) O seeking to rezone property has burden of prove consistent w/ CP. Burden shifts to LG that maintaining existing zoning accomplishes legitimate public purpose; and
(4) In cert. circuit court must be shown there was competent substantial evidence presented to board to support its ruling.
What case said:
Rezoning action as to an individual is QJ & subject to strict scrutiny on cert rvw.
Brevard v. Snyder.
What case said:
O demonstrating proposed use is consistent with CP is not presumptively entitled to such use.
Brevard v. Snyder.
What case said:
O seeking to rezone property has burden of prove consistent w/ CP. Burden shifts to LG that maintaining existing zoning accomplishes legitimate public purpose.
Brevard v. Snyder.
What case said:
In cert. circuit court must be shown there was competent substantial evidence presented to board to support its ruling.
Brevard v. Snyder
KELO ----------- In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 488–89, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005), the US Sup Ct: 1) Approved ED for use of \_\_\_\_\_. ----------- 2) Because, it found it to be \_\_\_\_\_. ----------- 3) But stressed \_\_\_\_\_.
KELO ----------- APPROVED: Promote econ dev ----------- FINDING: Econ dev = public purpose, ----------- STRESSED: Each state free to further restrict its exercise of the takings power. ----------- Harry M. Hipler, Tax Increment Financing in Florida: A Tool for Local Government Revitalization, Renewal, and Redevelopment, 81 Fla. B.J. 66, 67 (Aug.2007). As a result of Kelo, the Florida Legislature passed statutory amendments effective May 11, 2006, severely restricting a condemning authority's power to take private property for economic development. Id.; Ch.2006–11, Laws of Fla. In the past, local governments could legally take private property in a CRA and then sell it to a private developer for private development purposes for the elimination of slum or blight. Id. This can no longer be done. § 73.014, Fla. Stat. (2006). Today, private property taken pursuant to a local government's taking power must be for uses that historically have had a public purpose, such as roads, utilities, and transportation-related services. § 73.013, Fla. Stat. (2006); see also Hipler, 81 Fla. B.J. at 68. If the current version of the eminent domain statute applied to this case, then the Mach property could not be condemned. § 73.014, Fla. Stat. (2006). However, this statute is not retroactive. Ch.2006–11, § 15, at 214, Laws of Fla.
KELO ------------ What happened in FL as a result of Kelo? ------------ What were the laws before? ------------ What were the laws after?
REACTION IN FL - Passed 73.014
————
BEFORE - LG cd take private property in a CRA and then sell it to a private developer for private development purposes for the elimination of slum or blight.
————
AFTER - no taking for NUISANCE, SLUM or BLIGHT.
Take only for uses that historically have had a pub purp. (roads, utilities, & transportation-related services).
———–
§ 73.013 & 7.014, Fla. Stat.
See also Hipler, 81 Fla. B.J. at 68.
There’s no referendum for CRA/TIF. Constitutional?
Yes, per the Strand case,
CRA/TIF = revenue bond.
How remember? TIFfany’s sells Strands.
TORTS ----------- Is Sov Imm waived if LG creates a nuisance claim by it issuance of permits? ----------- Why or why not? ----------- HINT - 2 reasons.
No, sov. imm IS NOT waived for nuisance.
———–
1) b/c FWC owes NO DUTY to prevent trespass on private land.
2) Issuing license was DISCRETIONARY decision protected by sovereign immunity.
———–
Fla. Fish & Wildlife v. Davis, 256 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
What 3 things did BOCC Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993) say?
CP
1) Rezoning for specific individuals is QJ subj to strict scrutiny on cert review.
- ———-
2) O who proved intended use was consistent w/ CP is NOT PRESUMPTIVELY entitled to such use.
- ———-
3) O shows consistent w/ CP. Burden shifts to LG to show existing zoning accomplishes legit public purp.
Do you have to award to lowest in comp. bidding?
SOLICITATIONS ----------- No. Award is a method of evaluation. ----------- Must act within bounds of reasonable. ----------- Ex. 15% difference unreasonable in Adolphus v. Baskin, 95 Fla. 603, 116 So. 225 (1928).
• Garbage Disposal: Harris v. Wilson, 693 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1997) and Charlotte
County v. Fiske, 350 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977);
• Sewer Improvements: City of Hallandale v. Meekins, 237 So. 2d 318 (Fla.
• Fire Protection: South Trail Fire Control Dist., Sarasota County v. State, 273 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1973) and Fire Dist. No. 1 of Polk County v. Jenkins, 221 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 1969);
• Fire and First Response Rescue Services: Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ, 641 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 667 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1995); Lake County v. Water Oak Management Corp., 695 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1997); and Morris v. City of Cape Coral, 163 So. 3d 1174 (Fla. 2015). The scope of fire rescue services held to provide a logical relationship to the use and enjoyment of property was restricted in City of North Lauderdale v. SMM Properties, 825 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2002). The Court held that the “emergency medical services” portion of the combined fire and rescue services program failed to provide any special benefit to property;
• Street Improvements: Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Gainesville, 91 So. 118 (Fla. 1922) & Bodner v. City of Coral Gables, 245 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1971);
• Parking Facilities: City of Naples v. Moon, 269 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1972);
• Downtown Redevelopment: City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1992);
• Stormwater Management Services: Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1995);
• Water and Sewer Line Extensions: Murphy v. City of Port St. Lucie, 666 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1995);
• Neighborhood Amenities: City of Winter Springs v. State, 776 So. 2d 255 (Fla.
2001); and
• Beach Nourishment/Restoration:Donovan v. Okaloosa County, 82 So.3d 801 (Fla.
2012).
a county hospital, Crowder v. Phillips, 1 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1941),
a county health unit, Whisnant v. Stringfellow, 50 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1951), emergency medical services, City of North Lauderdale v. SMM Properties, 825 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2002).
Brush up on:
American Engineering and Development Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 20 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
City of Sweetwater v. Solo Const. Corp., 823 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA
2002)
Emerald Correctional Management v. Bay County Bd. of County Comrs., 955 So. 2d 647 (Fla 1st DCA 2007)
Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 606 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
What is it illegal to compel LG to do?
A-V TAX ----------- Pledge AV in a way that cd raise taxes. ----------- Volusia v. State, pledged all non-AV taxes w/ a promise to maintain all programs generating various revenues.
State 2 case law imposed aspects of Sov Imm & Ks.
SOV IMMUNITY
1) Can be sued in K - Davis v. Bayez.
2) K must be written - Ft Lauder v. Israel.
Sheriff in pursuit crashes a 3rd party. What 3 things wd you argue to win SJ?
1) Act not so reckless to constitute disregard for HWS
2) Acting in accord w/ written policy.
3) Officer had reason to believe fleeing vehicle committed a forcible felony.
———–
Ross v. City of Jax, 274 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
If there is both lawful motive & an assumed BMW motive, does POPE get sov imm?
What’s the threshold level for lawful motive?
YES!
———–
“When an ADEQUATE lawful motive is present,
even an assumed fact that an unlawful, retaliatory motive also exists does not preclude qualified
immunity.”
———–
Wall-DeSousa v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 691 F. App’x 584, 591 (11th Cir. 2017)
Name 3 things to state a Prima Facie Case for ER’s retaliatory action under the Act.
———–
Must the retaliation be the sole reason for the adverse action?
———–
Must the person actually be fired?
SAME AS RETALIATION
(1) EE engaged in protected activity,
(2) Adverse employment action and
(3) Causal connection exists between the two.
Does NOT have to be sole reason for adverse action.
~seems weird b/c retaliation is a ‘but for’ standard.
———–
Don’t get confused w/ Retaliatory Discharge of Ombudsman, which is a Statutory claim, not a tort & has no Sov. Imm. waiver.
———–
No, need NOT actually be fired.
———–
~all confirmed FS 440.205 & Koren v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade County, 97 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 2012).
There’s no referendum for CRA/TIF. Constitutional?
Yes, per the Strand case,
CRA/TIF = revenue bond.
How remember? TIFfany’s sells Strands.
What about sovereign immunity must be clear & unequivocal and what need not be expressed?
Waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear & unequivocal.
—————-
T/c need no longer make specific finding that sovereign immunity is not available to LG as a matter of law. Rather denial of motion to dismiss is sufficient.
