PINELLAS CLASSROOM TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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 affirmed the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion.
PCTA sought a temporary injunction and declaratory judgment that a statute authorizing incentive awards to schools was unconstitutional. PCTA argued t…
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 Request For Temporary Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
The Pinellas Classroom Teachers’ Association (PCTA) challenges the trial court’s order which denied PCTA’s request for a temporary injunction against the School Board of Pinellas County. We affirm.
PCTA asked the trial court for a declaratory judgment ruling that section 231.2905(3), Florida Statutes (1999), is facially unconstitutional. That statute, among other things, authorizes incentive awards to be paid to certain schools either for distribution to employees as bonuses or for the procurement of additional educational materials. PCTA maintains that the statute is unconstitutional because it allows the incentive bonuses to be paid without resort to collective bargaining first, thus abridging the constitutional right of teachers to bargain collectively as to wages. PCTA argues further that due to the facial unconstitutionality of the statute, the trial court erred in refusing to enjoin the Board from paying the bonuses.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to grant PCTA’s request for a temporary injunction. We write only to explain that in affirming the trial court’s order which denied PCTA’s request for an injunction, we need not rule on the constitutionality of the statute because the trial court specifically declined to rule on that issue, deferring ruling on that issue to the judge to whom the case had originally been assigned. There being no trial court ruling for us to review concerning the statute’s constitutionality, our affir-mance of the refusal to enter a temporary injunction does not affect or address the constitutionality of the statute.
Affirmed.
BLUE, C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allegheny Cas. Co. v. State, 850 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…t have apprehended or have substantially attempted to procure or cause the apprehension or surrender of the defendant. And, third, the delay has not thwarted the proper prosecution of the defendant. See Hillsborough County v. Roche Sur. & Cas., Co., 805 So. 2d 937, 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Surety argues that it has met all three of these conditions and is, therefore, entitled to remission. As for the first condition, since Surety promptly paid the estreated bond, there is no clear breach of the bond contract.…
-
AL Estes Bonding, Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 845 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…e entry of a judgment. It does not transform an order denying a motion to set aside forfeiture into a final order. This court has permitted an appeal from a final order that set aside an estreature, see Hillsborough County v. Roche Sur. & Cas. Co., 805 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), but that does not require this court to review an order denying such a motion. This court has also reviewed by direct appeal a case that seems on jurisdictional grounds to be indistinguishable from this case. See Dolly Bolding Ba…
-
State of Fla. & Clerk of the Cir. Court v. Sunshine State Bail Bonds, Inc., 967 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…as County v. Robertson, 490 So. 2d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The remission of a bond forfeiture is a statutory remedy that cannot be ordered for any reason other than as specified in section 903.28. Hillsborough County v. Roche Sur. & Cas. Co., 805 So. 2d 937, 938-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Pursuant to section 903.28, before a court can order remission of a bond, it must determine that there was no breach of the bond and the surety must have apprehended or “substantially attempted to procure or cause the app…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence