J.P., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM.
We have for review J.P. v. State, 775 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), in which the Second District Court of Appeal certified the following questions to be of great public importance:
WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE?
WHETHER THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL!;.]
Id. at 325. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
In T.M. v. State, 784 So. 2d 442 (Fla.2001), we answered the first certified question by holding that strict scrutiny applies to juvenile curfew ordinances. As in T.M., we decline to answer the second certified question, quash the decision of the district court, and remand this case for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2004)…respect to the majority’s footnote 1 and the majority’s comments relying upon stare decisis. I believe it must be noted that although this Court’s opinion in T.M. v. State, 784 So. 2d 442 (Fla.2001), which was the lead case and which J.P. v. State, 788 So. 2d 953 (Fla.2001), followed, did use the phrase “we agree,” the opinion contains no analysis. My vote in those earlier cases was a recognition of the State’s concession which was made in this Court. The concession had not been made in the district court. T…1 / 4
-
J.P. v. State, 832 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…UTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN REVIEWING THE CONSTITU [*112] TIONALITY OF A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE? (2) WHETHER THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL? J.P. v. State, 775 So. 2d 324, 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), quashed, J.P. v. State, 788 So. 2d 953 (Fla.2001). On review, the Florida Supreme Court answered the first of our questions by concluding that the proper standard of review of a juvenile curfew ordinance is strict scrutiny. See J.P. v. State, 788 So. 2d 953 (Fla.2001).1 Without addressi…1 / 2
-
J.A. v. State, 832 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…(1996). He argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional. This court, previously rejected his argument and affirmed the trial court’s determination that the ordinance was constitutional. See J.A. v. State, 779 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), quashed 788 So. 2d 953 (Fla.2001).’ In affirming the trial, court, this court applied the heightened scrutiny test. See State v. T.M., 761 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA. 2000), quashed, 784 So. 2d 442 (Fla.2001). However, this court also certified two questions to the Florida…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- T.M. v. State, 784 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2001)
- J.P. v. State, 775 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)