Cases Flashcards

Question

TORTS ----------- Are FCRA claims subject to sov. imm. cap?

Answer 1

``` TORTS ----------- De Sisito's FCRA de Sov Immuno. ----------- Yes. ----------- City of Delray Beach v. DeSisto, 197 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 20 ```

Answer 2

• 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)

Answer 3

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),

Answer 4

SOV. IMM. ----------- 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)

Answer 5

King PEJA ----------- 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?

Answer 6

1) Establish juris. C/A can review T/C's sj based purely on law de novo. --- 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?]

Answer 7

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)

Answer 8

``` 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. ```

Answer 9

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.

Answer 10

LEO - CONST ----------- [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.

Answer 11

``` 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 ```

Answer 12

MCLENDON (2019) ----------- 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.

Answer 13

MCLENDON (2019) ----------- Yes UNTIL investigation is no longer active.

Answer 14

NCAA ----------- Regardless, the documents were received in connection with the transaction of official business by an agency, they are public records.

Answer 15

NCAA ----------- 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.

Answer 16

AGO 2019-08 ----------- 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.

Answer 17

AGO 2019-08 ----------- 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.

Answer 18

SCOTT (2021) ----------- 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

Answer 19

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.

Answer 20

SCOTT (2021) ----------- A copy of the request.

Answer 21

BRACCI (2021) ----------- Yes if maintained in that format.

Answer 22

BRACCI (2021) ----------- Yes + yes, AF b/c failed to 'acknowledge' the request.

Answer 23

PAYLAN (2020) ----------- No. Case mgmt put parties on notice of scheduling, not the conduct of an evidentiary hearing.

Answer 24

MIAMI NEW TIMES (2020) ----------- No! Audit reports are exempt until finalized. Participant in audit disclosed draft audit. County still cannot produce the records b/c they remain exempt.

Answer 25

B+L (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.

Answer 26

B+L (2020) ----------- Finding that LG unlawfully refused to provide access to public records.

Answer 27

DEESON (2019) ----------- Yes.

Answer 28

EVERGLADES (2019) ----------- 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.

Answer 29

``` EVERGLADES (2019) ----------- Yes, redact. ----------- ~I MISS A LOT.~ ```

Answer 30

CRUZ (2019) ----------- No - public. If legislature wants them exempt, it will have to provide an exemption.

Answer 31

CRUZ (2019) ----------- 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,

Answer 32

``` CRUZ (2019) ----------- No - public. —- But when minors spoke on phone with parents, Court said such records are not part of security activity. ```

Answer 33

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.

Answer 34

SOLICITATIONS ----------- Arbitrary & capricious. - see Emerald v. Bay County.

Answer 35

SOLICITATIONS ----------- NO - see Emerald v. Bay County.

Answer 36

``` SOLICITATIONS ----------- Arbitrary & capricious. - see Emerald v. Bay County. ----------- NO - see Emerald v. Bay County. ```

Answer 37

``` 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 ```

Answer 38

CASES ----------- 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

Answer 39

CASES ----------- 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.

Answer 40

CASES ----------- 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).

Answer 41

CASES - ---------- 1) Can be sued in K - Davis v. Bayez. 2) K must be written - Ft Lauder v. Israel.

Answer 42

``` CASES ----------- When reviewing a QJ decision, Appellate Ct is limited to: 1) Correct law applied. 2) Procedural DP afforded. ----------- Miami Dade v. Blumenthal ```

Answer 43

CASES ----------- Q = correct, pro, competent & Blu me away ----------- Metro Dade v. Blumenthal. ----------- *confirmed 675 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)

Answer 44

(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.

Answer 45

CASES ----------- Brevard v. Snyder.

Answer 46

CASES ----------- Brevard v. Snyder.

Answer 47

CASES ----------- Brevard v. Snyder.

Answer 48

CASES ----------- Brevard v. Snyder

Answer 49

``` 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. ```

Answer 50

KELO ----------- 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.

Answer 51

BONDS ----------- Yes, per the Strand case, CRA/TIF = revenue bond. How remember? TIFfany's sells Strands.

Answer 52

TORTS ----------- 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)

Answer 53

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.

Answer 54

``` 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). ```

Answer 55

• 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).

Answer 56

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)

Answer 57

``` 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. ```

Answer 58

SOV IMMUNITY - ---------- 1) Can be sued in K - Davis v. Bayez. 2) K must be written - Ft Lauder v. Israel.

Answer 59

TORTS ----------- 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).

Answer 60

TORTS ----------- 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)

Answer 61

FL'S WORKER'S COMP. ACT ----------- 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).

Answer 62

BONDS ----------- Yes, per the Strand case, CRA/TIF = revenue bond. How remember? TIFfany's sells Strands.

Answer 63

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.

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Cases Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM