DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL SHATTO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a circuit court's denial of a motion for change of venue. The appellate court addressed whether a legislative staff analysis could be introduced for the first time on appeal to challenge a prior court interpretation of a statute.
The court granted the motion to strike the staff analysis as initially presented, but relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for 45 days to allow the taking of evidence regarding the legislative history of section 768.28, finding this the preferable procedure to ensure authenticity and allow opposing parties to present conflicting legislative history materials.
[1] Legislative staff analyses and economic impact statements may be considered by appellate courts in statutory construction.
[2] The preferable method for introducing legislative history documents into evidence is through judicial notice in the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court must be satisfied with the authenticity of the documents before judicial notice can be taken. Second, this procedure allows the party opposing the construction urged by the proponent of the report to search for legislative history materials which refute the position of the proponent and to introduce any such materials into evidence.”
Establishes the court's rationale for requiring legislative materials to be introduced in the trial court rather than for the first time on appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought to introduce a Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Impact Statement regarding an amendment to section 768.28, Florida Statutes, to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legislative History cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court denying a motion for change of venue. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(A) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
At issue in this appeal is the proper construction of section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1981).
The appellant has argued in its initial brief that an interpretation placed on that statute by this court in Keith v. Dykes, 430 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) was incorrect and, in support of that argument, has appended a copy of a “Senate Staff Analysis and Economic Impact Statement” prepared by staff members of the Florida Senate on a bill that amended section 768.28 in 1983. The staff analysis purportedly expresses the true legislative intent with regard to the statute and, according to appellant, points to the incorrectness of the Keith holding. The appellee has moved to strike the staff analysis and references thereto in the brief, arguing that it was not presented as evidence in the trial court and that it is not otherwise properly included in the appendix under Rule 9.220.
We note that legislative staff reports such as the one here at issue have been previously relied upon by Florida appellate courts in construing statutes. In some instances, the opinions do not state how the reports came before the court. See, e.g. State v. Page, 449 So. 2d 813, 816 (Fla.1984) (Adkins, J., dissenting); Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Prough, 463 So. 2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. State ex rel. Department of Insurance, 400 So. 2d 813, 817 n. 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Obviously, these reports may have been first introduced at the appellate level through the advocacy of counsel or through the independent research of the court. In at least two other Florida opinions, however, the courts relied on such reports after they had first been introduced in the trial courts through the mechanism of judicial notice. See Novo v. Scott, 438 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1984); Childers v. American Automobile Association, 424 So. 2d 116, 119 n. 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 438 So. 2d 831 (Fla.1983).
We consider this the preferable method, for two reasons.
First, the trial court must be satisfied with the authenticity of the documents before judicial notice can be taken.
Second, this procedure allows the party opposing the construction urged by the proponent of the report to search for legislative history materials which refute the position of the proponent and to introduce any such materials into evidence.
In this particular case, we grant the motion to strike, but we relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for 45 days for the taking of evidence on the legislative history of section 768.28. We do so because of the interlocutory nature of this appeal, and because of the obvious public importance of reaching a correct interpretation of the statute. That is, although the trial court’s ruling and our treatment thereof on appeal will have an immediate effect on these litigants, cases that involve pure questions of statutory interpretation frequently can and do have an important statewide impact that may not be present in other cases which involve facts peculiar to the particular litigation. We therefore regard it as essential that the trial and appellate courts have the opportunity to have legislative history completely presented and argued below when it will be helpful in reaching a correct interpretation of a statute. See Jacksonville Electric Authority v. Department of Revenue, 486 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1986).
Our authority to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for this limited purpose is clear. Lelekis v. Liles, 240 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1970).
Upon completion of any evidentiary hearings and the entry of an order, the clerk of the trial court is instructed to forward to this court a certified copy of the order and the supplemental record. The parties may then request leave to file additional or amended briefs. See Snedeker v. Vernmar, Ltd., 139 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1962).
THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellsworth v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am., 508 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…onsideration. Such reports may be consulted in the course of the court’s independent research, through advocacy, or through introduction into the record at the trial level by judicial notice. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Shatto, 487 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Jacksonville Electric Authority v. Department of Revenue, 486 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1986). Because we conclude that appellate judicial notice of a legislative Staff Summary and Analysis…
-
DeGREGORIO v. Balkwill, 853 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2003)…nding legislation are not determinative of the legislative intent, they are often relevant to such a determination. See, e.g., Ivey v. Chicago Insurance Co., 410 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla.1982); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Shatto, 487 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Florida Medical Center v. Von Stetina, 436 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The revised staff analysis prepared on the 1985 amendment to section 932.703(1) expressly states that the provision here at issue “is an attempt to reme…
-
In re Est. OF Ira C. Boyd, 519 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…echanism of judicial notice at the trial court level, such reports have apparently on occasion been first introduced and accepted at the appellate level through the advocacy of counsel. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Shatto, 487 So. 2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The reason for the preference that these documents be introduced below is twofold (1) to assure the authenticity of the documents; and (2) to allow the party opposing the introduction of the materials to search for other l…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Page, 449 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1984)
- Novo v. The Honorable Thomas E. Scott, 438 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Clay W. Keith v. Dykes, 430 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Lelekis v. Woodie A. Liles, 240 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1970)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Prough, 463 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Dep't OF Revenue, 486 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. State of Fla. ex rel. the Dep't OF Ins. of the State of Fla., 400 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Snedeker v. Vernmar, Ltd., 139 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1962)
- W.D. Childers v. Am. Auto. Ass'n, Inc., 424 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)