Cases Flashcards Preview

ZZZ0 A-RAMA 0 > Cases > Flashcards

Flashcards in Cases Deck (88)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

What type of damage is specifically NOT avail in a bus dmg claim?

A
BUSINESS DMGS
-----------
Interest.
-----------
MJ Stavola. b/c it's statute created.
2
Q

What case taught us the value of having written procurement policies?
How was that lesson learned?

A

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.

3
Q

What are the 2 requirements of tort claim notice under 768.28(6)(a)?

A
TORTS
-----------
1) Writing
2) Assert a claim.
-----------
Wilson v. City of Tampa, 209 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
-----------
MM, WD:  2 yrs, 90 days rvw, 2 yr SOL
Tort: 3 yrs, 6 mo rvw. 4 yr SOL.
4
Q

What does court require from PL in a public records lawsuit in order to make LG show cause?

A
SCOTT (2021)
-----------
Great Scott!  How can I rule without a copy of the request?
------------
A copy of the request.
5
Q

1983
Public official can be liable because why?

A
CIVIL RTS
-----------
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
6
Q

What has the 11th circuit said about immunity in 1983?

A

We don’t want our LG folks in a pickle - Picklo
———–
Only in exceptional cases will govt. actors have no shield against claims made against them in their individual capacities.
———–
Frausto vs. Picklo

7
Q

4th

A
8
Q

State 4 elements of inverse condemnation.

A

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.
———–
TLC Props

9
Q
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.

Hint - that weird red haired kid from OLPH

A

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)

10
Q

Is sov imm waived for claim of statutory claim of retaliatory discharge?

A

No! The right to sue for Retaliatory Discharge is a STATUTORY CLAIM, not a tort!!!
———–
State of FL, Dept. of Elder Affairs v. Caldwell, 199 So. 3d 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)

11
Q

What are some cases on muni’s extra pwrs?

A

See:
Town of Riviera Beach v. State, 53 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1951);
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).

12
Q

Once & for all -
Can a private individual be sued under 42 USC 1983?

A

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

13
Q

If there is both lawful motive & an assumed BMW motive, does POPE get sov imm?

A

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)

14
Q

Is LG’s decision to allocate PD during festival protected by Sov Imm?
Why?

A

Yes - protected b/c that is a discretionary decision.
———–
Sanchez v. Miami-Dade County, 245 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 3rd DVA 2018)

15
Q

What must court specifically do to make a sov. imm. claim appealable?

A

Must specifically find AS A MATTER OF LAW, that agency is not entitled to Sov. Imm.
———–
Miami-Dade County v. Pozos, 2017 WL 621233 (Fla, 3d DCA) (Feb. 15, 2017)

16
Q

What do you say when your LG has proposed crazy exactions to Applicant Developer?

A
LAND
-----------
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
17
Q

Is Commercial Speech easier to control? Why or why not?

A

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?

18
Q

LG Decisions Under CP - Support

A

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).

19
Q

What is the standard for evaluating a competitive procurement award?

A

LG’s ordinance.
- see Emerald v. Bay County.

20
Q

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.

A

(1) No sov. imm. for STATUTORY CLAIMS.
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 + 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)

21
Q

Does mass casualty event arise out of the same incident or occurrence, thus limiting all claimants to 200/300 cap?

A
TORTS
-----------
Yes.
-----------
DFS v. Barnett, 303 Sp. 3d 508 (Fla 2020).
22
Q

3 step validation review.

A

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).

23
Q
ESSAY
-----------
Sports Stadium bond issue.
-----------
State 5 arguments to be made after validating a sports stadium bond issue.
A

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).

24
Q

Name a test worthy situation where Bus dmgs are not available to a BO, beside the eligibility criteria.

A

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)

25
Q

Are FCRA claims subject to sov. imm. cap?

A
TORTS
-----------
Yes.
-----------
City of Delray Beach v. DeSisto, 197 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 20
26
Q

• Developer designed & and built city attraction.
• •
• Developer specializes in managing facilities.

Can you include property management in the competitively negotiated turn-key project solicitation?

A

• 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)

27
Q

Brush up on:

A

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),

28
Q
SOV. IMM.
-----------
Is Clerk entitled to sov. imm. if it fails to redact a record?
-----------
Why or why not?
A

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)

29
Q

State the 4 part test to wh/ LG gets sov. imm.

A

SOV. IMM.

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?

30
Q

State the 5 part step to analyzing wh/ sov. imm. applies.

A

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?]

31
Q

What is the new jurisdiction of C/A to review T/C decision, ex. sov. imm.?

A

Previously juris focused on 4 corners of challenged ORDER.
———–
City of Sweetwater v. Pichardo, 314 So.3d 540 (FL 3rd DCA 2020)

32
Q
EMPLYMT
-----------
Can a person be dismissed for testifying in response to a subpoena?
---
If fired, does sov. imm. protect LG?
A
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.
33
Q

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.

A

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.

34
Q

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.

A

[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.

35
Q
EMPLMT LIAB
-----------
Can indiv be fired for testifying pursuant to a subpoena?
-----------
What are the 2 things specifically excused?
-----------
What 2 remedies?  
-----------
Does Sov. Imm. apply?
A
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
36
Q

When is a complaint initiating an investigation into public official’s mismanagement of funds exempt?

A

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.

37
Q

Are whistleblower complaints exempt?

A

Yes UNTIL investigation is no longer active.

38
Q

What if records are maintained on a private website?

A

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

39
Q

Are private entity’s records exempt?

A

Yes, normally.
But not if reviewed & used in course of public agency’s business. [here, used by attys for FSU]
, public agency.
the documents at issue in this case were examined by lawyers for a public agency, Florida State University, and used in the course of the agency’s business.

Because . The NCAA has failed to show that an exception applies under state or federal law, and thus, the records must be disclosed.”

40
Q

How wd IT testing overall be viewed?

A

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.

41
Q

When can LG allow a Ktor access to confidential records (soc sec #s) for purposes of testing security?

A

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.

42
Q

How much must be attached to a complaint for writ of mandamus?

A

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

43
Q

What must a complaint for a writ of mandamus contain?

A

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.

44
Q

What does court require from PL in a public records lawsuit in order to make LG show cause?

A

A copy of the request.

45
Q

Must LG produce records in a specifically requested format?

A

Yes if maintained in that format.

46
Q

If computer system purges a PR request, is LG still deemed to have violated the PR laws? AF?

A

Yes + yes, AF b/c failed to ‘acknowledge’ the request.

47
Q

Is case management order sufficient for court to hold PR hearing?

A

No.
Case mgmt put parties on notice of scheduling, not the conduct of an evidentiary hearing.

48
Q

Can exempt records change their status once disclosed to public?

A

No!
Audit reports are exempt until finalized.
Participant in audit disclosed draft audit.
County still cannot produce the records b/c they remain exempt.

49
Q

Does PL get AF if court finds the records requested were public?

A

No!
Order must say that LG unlawfully refused to provide access to PRs.

50
Q

What must be included in Court order to get AF for PR violation?

A

Finding that LG unlawfully refused to provide access to public records.

51
Q

Can a writ of mandamus be appropriate vehicle for redress of a public records violation?

A

Yes.

52
Q

State the surprising reason transcript of a shade meeting, re: atty statements are exempt.

A

It’s “mediation communication.”
Ch 44 (1) mediation communications are confidential, (2) mediation writings (except settlement agmt) ar

53
Q

Are communications by Water District’s atty made during shade mtg, re: court ordered mediation exempt?

A
EVERGLADES (2019)
-----------
Yes, redact.
-----------
~I MISS A LOT.~
54
Q

Are visitor logs that show what psychiatrist visited Def, possibly revealing his trial strategy/work product exempt?

A

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

55
Q

Are prisoner phone call recordings exempt?

A

Yes - exempt.
Reviewing the records for security is official business but keeping calls of juveniles awaiting trial w/ their parents was not.

56
Q

Are jail visitor logs exempt?
Are phone logs exempt?

A

No - public.

57
Q

State 4 criteria of what makes a doc PR.

A

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.

58
Q

What is the standard for evaluating a competitive procurement award if LG has no ordinance?

A

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

59
Q

May a response be modified post-submittal?

A

NO - see Emerald v. Bay County.

60
Q

What is the standard for evaluating a competitive procurement award if LG has no ordinance?
———–
May a response be modified post-submittal?

A
SOLICITATIONS
-----------
Arbitrary & capricious.
- see Emerald v. Bay County.
-----------
NO - see Emerald v. Bay County.
61
Q

What is LEO’s ER escape from liab for fleer in pursuit?

A

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

62
Q

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?

A

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

63
Q

Are FCRA claims subject to sov. imm. cap?

A
TORTS
-----------
Yes.
-----------
City of Delray Beach v. DeSisto, 197 So. 3d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
64
Q

Sheriff in pursuit crashes a 3rd party. What 3 things wd you argue to win SJ?

A

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).

65
Q

State 2 case law imposed aspects of Sov Imm & Ks.

A

SOV IMMUNITY

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

66
Q

What is it illegal to compel LG to do?

A
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.
67
Q

Brush up on:

A

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)

68
Q

• 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;

A

• 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).

69
Q

What 3 things did BOCC Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993) say?

A

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.

70
Q

What 2 new things did I learn about the applicability of sovereign immunity depending on the origin of certain types of claims?

A

(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)

71
Q

Do you have to award to lowest in comp. bidding?

A
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).
72
Q
CASES
-----------
What was said in:
---
American Engineering and Development Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 20 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
A

american engineer = basic. if lowest NG, go to 2nd.
———–
If lowest bidder is not qualified, responsive & responsible, go to 2nd lowest bidder.
———–
American Engineering and Development Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 20 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

73
Q
CASES
-----------
What case:
-----------
1)  Had a bidder whose bid didn't comply w/ specs. &
-----------
2)  Said:
If lowest bidder is not qualified, responsive & responsible, go to 2nd lowest bidder.
A

American Engineering and Development Corp. v. Town of Highland Beach, 20 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

74
Q
CASES
-----------
What was said in:
---
City of Sweetwater v. Solo Const. Corp., 823 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
A

Sweetwater turned sour when LG acted arb & cap w/ new criteria.
————

City of Sweetwater v. Solo Const. Corp., 823 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

75
Q
CASES
-----------
What case said:
---
When a K is awarded on price, must go to lowed qualified & responsive bidder.  Awarding otherwise (ex. new criteria) = arbitrary & capricious
A

City of Sweetwater v. Solo Const. Corp., 823 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

76
Q
CASES
-----------
What was said in:
---
Emerald Correctional Management v. Bay County Bd. of County Comrs., 955 So. 2d 647 (Fla 1st DCA 2007)
A

LG has wide discretion & its decision, when based on HONEST exercise of the discretion, shd not be overturned, even if REASONABLE MINDS DISAGREE.
———–
Emerald Correctional Management v. Bay County Bd. of County Comrs., 955 So. 2d 647 (Fla 1st DCA 2007).

77
Q
CASES
-----------
What case said:
---
LG has wide discretion & its decision, when based on HONEST exercise of the discretion, shd not be overturned, even if REASONABLE MINDS DISAGREE.
A

Emeralds need to be HONEST even if REAS MINDS DISAGREE.
———–
Emerald Correctional Management v. Bay County Bd. of County Comrs., 955 So. 2d 647 (Fla 1st DCA 2007).

78
Q
CASES
-----------
What was said in:
---
Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
A

Bidder may not change its bid after bids have been opened, except to cure minor irregularities.
———–
Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

79
Q
CASES
-----------
What case said:
---
Bidder may not change its bid after bids have been opened, except to cure minor irregularities.
A
CASES
-----------
Pepper can cure minor irregularities.
-----------
Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
80
Q
CASES
-----------
What was said in:
---
Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 606 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
A

Protestor must be prepared to show that the awarded bid was deficient but also that his own does not suffer from the same deficiency.
———–
Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 606 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

81
Q
CASES
-----------
What case said:
---
Protestor must be prepared to show that the awarded bid was deficient but also that his own does not suffer from the same deficiency.
A

dept of health will considered your complaint, be sure you’re not deficient.
———–
Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 606 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

82
Q
FS
-----------
What statute says what MSTU + MSBU can be used for.
-----------
What are the 16 uses?
A
FS
-----------
125.01(q)
-----------
1- fire; -2- LEO; -3- beach erosion; -4- recreation; -5- water; -6- streets; -7- sidewalks; -8- street lighting; -9- sidewalks; -10- garbage; -11- sewage; -12- drainage; -13- transportation; -14- indig health; -15- mental health; & -16- other essential facilities & services
83
Q

We know you can’t use special assessments for LEO. So what can you use? According to what statute?

A
FS
-----------
q says, let's introduce something 'q'uirky = mstus
-----------
MSTU [maybe BU?].
-----------
125.01(q)
84
Q
FS
-----------
What statute says what Counties can do monetarily?
-----------
What are those 5 points?
A

125.01(r)
[r says no ‘r’eferendum for MSTU]
———–
1) Tax, for county purps & muni serv w/i MSTU
2) Special assessments;
3) Borrow & issue bonds.
4) No referendum to tax in MSTU.
5) Can’t assess fire protection on ag lands unless (1) residential dwelling or (2)
nonresidential farm building [but for pole barn (70% no walls)] valued $10k+3

85
Q
FS
-----------
Does County need to concern itself with the waste mgmt needs of munis?
-----------
What answers this?
-----------
What kind of fees can be charged?
A

YES - responsibility of County per 403.706 
———–
Reasonable. Can’t charge more to muni.
———–
Local government solid waste responsibilities.—
(1) The governing body of a county has the responsibility and power to provide for the operation of solid waste disposal facilities to meet the needs of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county

86
Q

Why might a muni go w/ 180 rather than 170 to impose a SA for fire protection?

A

170.01(2) does require spec bene + apportion BUT also spec bene must be DIFFERENT IN KIND to COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
———–
Lake County vs. Water Oak Mgmt., 695 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1997).
Os tried to argue this but Court said no such restriction on Counties. Also - no such in 180.

87
Q

What’s the super restricting thing about 170?

A

Muni’s SA must give a bene different in kind to that of the community as a whole.
———–
Difficult to meet. Ex. fire protection.
See discussion that Counties don’t have this - Lake County vs. Water Oak Mgmt., 695 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1997).

88
Q
FS
-----------
What cannot be a part of a fire assessment?
-----------
Why?
-----------
Per what case?
A

Does impart a spec bene on property. Doesn’t reduce insurance premiums or enhance value of prop.
———–
City of North Lauderdale v. SMM Properties, 825 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2002).

Decks in ZZZ0 A-RAMA 0 Class (216):