Category: Constitutional Law

Constitutional Law

ValleyCrest Landscape Maintenance, Inc. v. State of Florida, Dept. of Revenue

Trial court properly entered summary judgment dismissing claim for sales tax refund paid on gasoline used in lawn care equipment of landscaping business because the phrase “used to propel motor vehicles” contained in article XII, section 9(c) of the Florida Constitution does not limit the scope of the gasoline tax and because denial of the tax refund did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.  ValleyCrest Landscape Maintenance, Inc. v. State of Florida, Dept. of Revenue, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1500 (Fla. 1st DCA June 24, 2016). 2016 WL 3450479

Sowell v. Panama Commons, L.P.

First District Court of Appeal erred in ruling that a nonprofit limited partnership’s due process right were violated by the application of the 2015 repeal of the ad valorem tax exemption under section 196.1978, Florida Statutes for affordable housing property because the because the repeal was enacted before the certification of the tax roll and therefore the limited partnership’s interest had not yet vested.  Sowell v. Panama Commons, L.P., 42 Fla. L. Weekly S249 (Fla. June 2, 2016).

City of Fort Pierce v. Treasure Coast Marina, LC

Trial court erred by enjoining the application of an ad valorem tax exemption to a city’s marina because a city’s marina serves a “municipal or public purpose” per article VII, section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution. Certifying the following as a question of great public importance:

“In light of Florida Department of Revenue v. City of Gainesville, 918 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2005), does a municipally owned and operated Marina still qualify as a traditionally exempt “municipal or public purpose’ under article VII, section 3(a) of the Florida Constitution?” City of Fort Pierce v. Treasure Coast Marina, LC, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA May 31, 2016) (substituting opinion reported at 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1032 (Fla. 4th DCA April 27, 2016)).

Goodman v. Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Florida Administrative Code Rule 11D-8.013 which sets out criteria to apply for a permit to conduct blood alcohol analyses does not constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by failing to incorporate a process to indentify and/or exclude unreliable blood samples from the testing process.   Goodman v. Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 203 So.3d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA May 25, 2016).

 

Florida Administrative Code Rule 11D-8.012 governing the collection and storage of samples does not constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by failing to establish standards for the method by which blood is collected for chemical analysis.  Goodman v. Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1247 (Fla. 4th DCA May 25, 2016).

Mammon v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc.

Trial court properly dismissed complaint against defendant cemeteries for misrepresenting and failing to bury plaintiff’s husband in accordance with “Jewish burial customs and traditions” because circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction per the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine rooted in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Mammon v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., 193 So.3d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA May 25, 2016).

Bogorff v. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

In Citrus Cancer case, appellate court held that plaintiffs were not required to pursue a claims bill in order to get paid, but that the issue of the constitutionality of sections 11.066(3) and (4), Florida Statutes as applied was premature because plaintiffs had pending a petition for writ of mandamus.  Bogorff v. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 191 So.3d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA May 4, 2016).

JBK Associates, Inc. v. Sill Bros., Inc.

Judgment debtor was entitled to homestead protection of article V, section 3(b) (3) of the Florida Constitution with regard to proceeds from voluntary sale of his homestead because they were deposited in a brokerage account designated as his “homestead account”—thus manifesting an intention to use the proceeds to purchase a new homestead—and because the Florida Constitution does not require “judgment debtors to place homestead proceeds in non-interest earning mediums only.”  JBK Associates, Inc. v. Sill Bros., Inc., 191 So.3d 879(Fla. April 28, 2016).