Paul D. Barns

The case involved a challenge by taxpayers to the City of Deerfield Beach's proposed issuance of $1.5 million in municipal bonds, secured by revenues from cigarette, franchise, occupational license, and alcoholic beverage taxes, to purchase land and build a spring training facility for the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball team that would then be leased to private entities. The City planned to use most of the proceeds for the facility and the rest to retire prior bonds, enabling the tax pledges. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the trial court's validation of the bonds. The core reasoning was that the project did not serve a valid public purpose sufficient to justify pledging public tax revenues for facilities primarily benefiting a private major league team.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a wife's appeal from a final divorce decree that granted the husband a divorce and custody of the two younger children, awarded the wife custody of the two older children along with child support, provided her with $100 monthly alimony for six months, and ordered payment of her attorneys' fees. The district court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the wife was estopped from challenging the decree because she had accepted the alimony and fee payments. On certiorari, the Florida Supreme Court quashed that dismissal, holding that the wife was not estopped. The court reasoned that acceptance of periodic alimony or support money, which is based on the husband's legal obligation rather than a negotiated agreement, does not waive appeal rights absent clear prejudice to the husband or circumstances requiring estoppel, and distinguished the facts from cases involving lump-sum awards or full acceptance of all benefits under an agreement.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over coverage under an automobile insurance policy's comprehensive clause for damage to a vehicle's engine caused by overheating from a stuck thermostat, which melted pistons and froze the main bearing. The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari, quashed the district court's affirmance of a judgment for the insured, and held that the insurer was not liable. The policy excluded coverage for damage due and confined to mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure, and the court reasoned that the loss here resulted solely from such a breakdown without involvement of any insured peril like fire. It approved the reasoning from the district court dissent and a similar Texas case, distinguishing scenarios where an insured peril contributes to or follows the breakdown.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a property owner's challenge to a municipal zoning ordinance that was amended to prohibit keeping ponies at his nursery school and kindergarten in an R-O zone. The petitioner filed a complaint in equity seeking an injunction against enforcement, alleging the amendment was invalid due to lack of proper notice, hearings, and compliance with procedural requirements. The trial court and district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, primarily because equity typically does not enjoin enforcement of regulatory ordinances. The Supreme Court qualifiedly affirmed the dismissal on grounds that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations rather than mere conclusions, but clarified that equity jurisdiction is available to challenge zoning ordinances affecting property use when properly pleaded.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved William Crownover seeking a writ of prohibition to bar the District Court of Appeal from hearing a state corrections official's appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding, on grounds that the appeal was filed 32 days after judgment and thus untimely under the 30-day limit for state appeals in criminal cases per Section 924.10. The Supreme Court of Florida held that habeas corpus proceedings are civil in nature rather than criminal, even when arising from a criminal conviction or restraint, so the criminal appeal deadline did not govern. The court receded from earlier precedent applying the criminal time limit to such appeals and noted that the right to appeal is now constitutional and a matter of right, subject only to court rules on procedure. It therefore denied prohibition and allowed the appeal to proceed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Abraham Cassel, a practicing psychologist threatened with criminal prosecution by the Florida State Board of Examiners of Psychology for using the title without a certificate under Chapter 490, Florida Statutes. Cassel filed suit seeking a declaratory decree that the law was unconstitutional, and the trial court agreed, leading to this appeal by the Board. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding the statute unconstitutional because it delegated legislative power to the Board without adequate standards, allowing the Board unfettered discretion to define examination content, approve universities, and set qualification requirements for psychologists.

business & regulatory