ANTHONY R. MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment upholding the validity of Dade County Ordinance No. 93 — 46, which repealed the so-called “anti-bilingual” ordinance adopted in 1980 by the electorate through the initiative process. The trial judge found that (a) section 7.01(7) of the Dade County Home Rule Charter, which authorizes the commission to repeal, after one year, an ordinance adopted by initiative, was itself valid and constitutional and (b) the repealing ordinance did not violate Article II, section 9 of the Florida Constitution which declares English the official language of the state. We agree with both holdings.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Faunce Levon Pearce v. State, 880 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2004)…at he or she was mistaken when it was made, or explain that the prior statement is not inconsistent. Under section 90.614(2), extrinsic evidence is admissible when a witness does not “distinctly admit” making the prior statement. See Pugh v. State, 637 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (finding error in not admitting prior inconsistent portions of witness’s deposition into evidence when witness stated that “he did not remember the questions he was asked nor the answers he gave during his deposition”). If th…1 / 2
-
Elmer v. State, 114 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…he witness does not “distinctly admit” making the prior statement, including when he or she claims an inability to remember making it, extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the statement was made. § 90.614(2), Fla. Stat.; see also Pugh v. State, 637 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We find the trial court abused its discretion in prohibiting Elmer from using the 1995 police report as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach C.J. Her testimony at trial conflicted with the statements reflected in the 1…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 65 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…nconsistent statement” under section 90.614(2), so that “the trial court erred by not permitting [*1136] defense counsel to admit extrinsic evidence,” a videotape of the witness’s prior statement. Id. at 570. This case also resembles Pugh v. State, 637 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). There, a witness testified in deposition that the defendant was not an active participant in the robbery; at trial, the witness changed his testimony and said that the defendant “was directly involved in the robbery by holding a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence