CITY OF DUNNELLON, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
LUIS F. ARAN AND IAN HAY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that a city mayor's failure to disclose the specific names of attorneys attending a closed attorney-client session violated the Sunshine Law, rejecting a substantial compliance defense.
The failure to announce the specific names of persons participating in a closed attorney-client session violates Florida Statutes section 286.011(8)(d), and substantial compliance is insufficient.
[1] The Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Law requires strict construction, and the statutory mandate to announce the specific names of persons attending a closed attorney-c…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 entity shall give reasonable public notice of the time and date of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons who will be attending the session.”
Statutory requirement under section 286.011(8)(d), Florida Statutes, regarding disclosure obligations for closed attorney-client sessions.
The City of Dunnellon's mayor held a closed attorney-client session but failed to disclose the names of the specific lawyers from the City Attorney's …
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 Strict Construction Of Statutory Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
The controlling issue in this ease is whether the failure to announce the names of those persons participating in a closed attorney-client session is a violation of the Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Law. The trial court found that the mayor’s failure to disclose the names of the lawyer from the City Attorney’s Office and the lawyers from a specially retained out-of-town law firm violated the terms of section 286.011(8)(d), Florida Statutes which reads:
The entity shall give reasonable public notice of the time and date of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons who will be attending the session. The session shall commence at an open meeting at which the person chairing the meeting shall announce the commencement and estimated length of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons at-tending_ (emphasis added).
The City urges that when the mayor announced that the attorneys hired by the City would attend the session, his “substantial compliance” was sufficient to satisfy the statute. We disagree and affirm the trial court.
Based on the history of the Sunshine Law and the carefully drafted and detailed provisions of this exception to it, we find the legislature intended that a strict construction be applied. The clear requirements of the statute are neither onerous nor difficult to satisfy.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zorc v. City OF Vero Beach, 722 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…n. In construing the statute, it is well settled that the Sunshine Law, enacted for the public benefit, should be liberally construed to give effect to its public purpose while exemptions should be narrowly construed. See City of Dunnellon v. Aran, 662 So. 2d 1026, 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Board of Pub. Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, 224 So. 2d 693, 699 (Fla.1969). Presence of unauthorized persons at closed meeting Zorc claims that unauthorized persons were in attendance at the City Council closed…1 / 2
-
The Sch. Bd. OF Duval Cnty. v. Fla. Publ'g Co., 670 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ble to conclude that the attorney general’s interpretation of the statute is at variance with the legislative purpose. As previously observed, section 286.011(8) does not expressly refer to either staff or consultants. See City of Dunnellon v. Aran, 662 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (holding that legislature intended strict construction of exception in section 286.011(8)). Moreover, the superintendent and individual school board members are free to meet with staff in private at any time, in that staff person…