HERNANDO BEACH MARINE GROUP
v.
HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA
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.
Hernando Beach Marine Group appealed the dismissal of its claims against Hernando County based on sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that its claims were supported by an express written contract or properly documented modifications thereto, which are prerequisites to waiving a county's sovereign immunity.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the appellant failed to show that the disputed claims were supported by the express written contract or a properly documented subsequent modification. Sovereign immunity was properly invoked because the appellant did not establish the contractual prerequisites necessary to waive the county's immunity.
[1] Sovereign immunity should be established as early in litigation as possible.
[2] A county is a division of the state and enjoys the state's sovereign immunity unless the Legislature provides otherwise by general law.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“[B]ecause sovereign immunity includes immunity from suit, entitlement to sovereign immunity should be established as early in the litigation as possible.”
Establishes that sovereign immunity is properly raised at the motion to dismiss stage to avoid prolonged litigation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn express written contract existed between Hernando Beach Marine Group (appellant) and Hernando County (appellee), but the appellant did not establis…
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 Implied Covenant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Fla. Highway Patrol v. Jackson, 288 So. 3d 1179, 1185 (Fla. 2020) (“[B]ecause sovereign immunity includes immunity from suit, entitlement to sovereign immunity should be established as early in the litigation as possible.”); Arnold v. Shumpert, 217 So. 2d 116, 120 (Fla. 1968) (holding that “[a] county is a division of the state” and that “[i]t enjoys the state’s sovereign immunity unless the Legislature by a general law provides otherwise” (citing Keggin v. Hillsborough County, 71 So. 372, 372 (Fla. 1916))); Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep’t of Corr., 471 So. 2d 4, 6 (Fla. 1989) (holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity applies “only to suits on express, written contracts”); County of Brevard v. Miorelli Eng’g, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 1997) (declining “to hold that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel can be used to defeat the express terms of the contract[;] [o]therwise, the requirement of Pam Am that there first be an express written contract before there can be a waiver of sovereign immunity would be an empty one”); Heine v. Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 360 So. 3d 412, 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (stating that there is no waiver of sovereign immunity “for claims in equity” and that the State enjoys “sovereign immunity from quasi-contractual claims such as unjust enrichment” (citations omitted)); Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Miami Dade Coll. v. Verdini, 339 So. 3d 413, 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (providing that a State entity’s entitlement to sovereign immunity “may properly be considered on a motion to dismiss” (citation omitted)); Vorbeck v. Betancourt, 107 So. 3d 1142, 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (recognizing as well-settled that the rule of preservation applies to the alleged improper dismissal of a complaint with prejudice (quoting Jelenc v. Draper, 678 So. 2d 917, 918 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996))).
LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. MAKAR, J., concurs with opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (50 total)
-
State v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1920)…ranchise to the Traction Company, therefore, the city merely exercised a power to contract with the company in a matter in which the city acted in its corporate rather than in a governmental character. See Keggin v. Hillsborough County, 71 Fla. 356, 71 South. Rep. 372. This being true no contract exists between the city and the Traction Company, the obligation of which could be considered to be impaired, if the State in the exercise of its police power by appropriate measures disregarded the rate fixed by the cit…
-
Kaufman v. The City of Tallahassee, 84 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1922)…of local franchises and rights which pertain to it as a legal personality or entity for its quasi-private (as distinguished from public) corporate avantage. See 1 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, 168; Keggin v. Hillsborough County, 71 Fla. 356, 71 South. Rep. 372. [*638] The establishment and maintenance of a fire department may be regarded as a governmental function, that point is not necessary to a decision in this case, but whether the operation of its vehicles and trucks in crowded streets, where due eit…
-
Arnold v. Keither L. Shumpert, 217 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1968)…shall be divided into political divisions to be called counties.” A county is a division of the state. It enjoys the state’s sovereign immunity unless the Legislature by a general law provides otherwise, Keggin v. Hillsborough County, 71 Fla. 356, 71 So. 372 (1916). Thus, the Special Act here involved is unconstitutional because waiver of a county’s sovereign immunity cannot be accomplished by local law. (IV) “The Court erred in compelling appellants to allege in their complaint the statutory authority…
Previewing 3 of 50 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep't OF Corr., 471 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1984)
- Arnold v. Keither L. Shumpert, 217 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1968)
- Cnty. OF Brevard v. Miorelli Eng'g, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1049 (Fla. 1997)
- Vorbeck v. Betancourt, 107 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Jelenc v. Draper, 678 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Esin Daniel Abia v. City of Opa-Locka, 339 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)