LAURIE ANN LEONARDI, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), does not violate the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a case where the constitutionality of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), was challenged under the si…
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 Article Iii, Section 6 Of The Florida Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review Leonardi v. State, 548 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987), did not violate the single subject rule of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. In that case, the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:1
DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION?
Id. at 811. We recently answered this question in the negative in Burch v. State, 558 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1990).2
Accordingly, we approve the district court’s decision.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. . Leonardi raises an additional issue in this appeal. The district court did not discuss that issue in its opinion and we exercise our discretion not to consider it in this proceeding.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Douglas, 654 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1995)…red motorist coverage is available because no liability or uninsured motorist coverage was purchased for the particular vehicle involved in the accident. This theory prevailed in World Wide, wherein this court cited Valiant Insurance Co. v. Webster, 567 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1990), and stated: In Valiant we construed Mullis and noted that after the Mullis decision “the courts have consistently followed the principle that if the liability portions of an insurance policy would be applicable to a particular accident,…1 / 3
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Warren, 678 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1996)…tion would clearly prevent the estate from collecting under both the liability and the UM provisions of the policy. However, all automobile insurance policies must offer UM protection as broad as the UM statute requires. Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster, 567 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla.1990). Therefore, the issue before us is whether section 627.727(3)(b) negates the effect of the policy’s “your car” exception. Section 627.727(3)(b) was an amendment to the UM statute enacted as chapter 89-243, Laws of Florida. In order…
-
World Wide Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Welker, 640 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1994)…legislative policy enunciated in Mullís and provided in section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1991), [formerly section 627.0861, Florida Statutes (1969) ]. Instead it inappropriately relies on unsupported dicta from Valiant Insurance Co. v. Webster, 567 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1990), to justify its reconsideration and heavy resection of Mullís. The Valiant decision establishes that uninsured motorist coverage will be available only where “the person who suffered bodily injuries had uninsured motorist coverage.” 567…1 / 4
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burch v. State, 558 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1990)
- Leonardi v. State, 548 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)