ELVES JULMIST, JR.
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, ET AL.
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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court decision regarding traffic control jurisdiction and sovereign immunity in Miami-Dade County, holding that the county's traffic and transportation department has exclusive jurisdiction over traffic control devices and that emergency response actions are entitled to deference under sovereign immunity doctrine.
The court affirmed that the traffic and transportation department has exclusive jurisdiction over all traffic control devices in the county, and that sovereign immunity applies to emergency actions taken by county officials where they must choose between different actions that pose potential threats to the public.
“all traffic engineering services shall be performed by the traffic and transportation department, and such department shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all traffic control devices in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county”
Establishes the exclusive jurisdictional authority of the traffic and transportation department over traffic control devices
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute concerning traffic engineering services and traffic control devices in Miami-Dade County. The county's traffic and transpo…
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 Sovereign Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Miami-Dade County, Fla., Code of Ordinances, ch. 2, art. XIII, § 2-96.1 (2023) (“From and after September 16, 1960, all traffic engineering services shall be performed by the traffic and transportation department, and such department shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all traffic control devices in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county, and shall have exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers, duties and functions set forth herein.”); Miami-Dade County, Fla., Code of Ordinances, ch. 2, art. XIII, § 2-95.1(g) (2023) (“The department shall assume full responsibility for the operation, maintenance[,] and replacement of all existing signs[,] signals, and markings now in use in the several municipalities . . . .”); see also Polite v. State, 116 So. 3d 270, 275 (Fla. 2013) (“[I]n Florida, the witness’s testimony as to the correctness of the [recorded] statement is essential to the admission of the evidence.”); Robles v. Metropolitan Dade County, 802 So. 2d 453, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (upholding sovereign immunity based on emergency exception where county “had to choose between different actions, each of which posed a potential threat to the public”); Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So. 2d 732, 738 n.3 (Fla. 1989) (“The way in which government agents respond to a serious emergency is entitled to great deference, and may in fact reach a level of such urgency as to be considered discretionary and not operational.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1989)
- Darius Jamine Polite v. State, 116 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 2013)
- Robles v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 802 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)