ENVIRONMENTAL CONFEDERATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., AND MANASOTA-88, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, AND DAVID STRUHS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 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.
Environmental groups challenged a Florida statute as violating the single subject requirement of the Florida Constitution. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the legislature reenacted the challenged statute as part of its biennial readoption process, which cured any constitutional defect.
The appeal is moot and is dismissed. The reenactment of chapter 2002-261 through chapter 2003-25 took effect on July 1, 2003, thereby curing any single subject defect. The court rejected appellants' argument that the reenactment was not effective until publication of the 2003 Florida Statutes, holding instead that the reenactment became effective on the date the act became law.
[1] A challenge to a statute based on a single subject requirement is rendered moot by the legislature's subsequent reenactment of the statute's provisions as part of the bie…
[2] The effective date of a legislative reenactment of Florida Statutes, even if stated to take effect upon publication, is construed to be the date on which the reenactment…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a single subject violation is cured upon biennial readoption of the Florida Statutes”
Establishes the legal principle that reenactment through the biennial readoption process cures any single subject constitutional defect
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. and Manasota-88, Inc. filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief agains…
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 Mootness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of an order of the circuit court dismissing their complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, in which they alleged that chapter 2002-261, Laws of Florida, violates the single subject requirement of the Florida Constitution. We conclude that as argued by appellee Struhs, the appeal has been rendered moot by the enactment of chapter 2003-25, Laws of Florida, which took effect on July 1, 2003, and reenacted the provisions of chapter 2002-261 as part of the legislature’s biennial readoption of the Florida Statutes. See generally Tormey v. Moore, 824 So. 2d 137 (Fla.2002)(stating general rule that a single subject violation is cured upon biennial readoption of the Florida Statutes).
Appellants argue that dismissal on this basis would be premature because under section 1 of chapter 2003-25, reenactment “shall take effect immediately upon publication” of the 2003 version of Florida Statutes, and such publication has not yet occurred. However, that same language has been used in prior reenactment acts, and those acts have been construed to make reenactment effective as of the date on which the act became law. See, e.g., Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000); Tormey v. Moore, supra; State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993). Consistent with these decisions, we hold that the reenactment of chapter 2002-261 took effect on July 1, 2003, thereby curing any single subject defect. Moreover, while it is true that appellants initiated their challenge during the window period for raising a single subject claim, they have failed to articulate any practical purpose that would be served by allowing this appeal from the denial of declaratory and injunctive relief to continue now that the window period has closed. Accordingly, we conclude that this appeal is moot, and dismiss it on that basis.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
ALLEN, KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Env't Confederation OF Sw. Fla., Inc. v. IMC Phosphates, Inc., 857 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…pellants’ single-subject constitutional challenge to section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes, had become moot due to the legislature’s readoption of the Florida Statutes on July 1, 2003. Envtl. Confed’n of S.W. Fla., Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 852 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (Environmental Confederar tion II). IMC argues that there is no more practical reason to be served by allowing the appeal to proceed in this case than there was in the companion case, and I agree. In both appeals, appellants hav…1 / 2
-
Env't Confederation of Sw. Fla., Inc. v. State, 886 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…of permits by DEP was removed by the amendment to section 403.412. Thus, Rothermel is inapplicable. DEP and IMC also argue that the appeal is rendered moot because of the decision in Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. v. State, 852 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), in which this court found that the appellants’ request for declaratory relief had been rendered moot by the reenactment of chapter 2002-261, Laws of Florida. In that case the appellants sought a declaration that the statute was…
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Johnson, 980 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…ect on July 1, 2003, the 60th day after the adjournment sine die of the legislative session in which it was enacted. Ch. 03-25, § 5, Laws of Fla.; State v. Rothauser, 934 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Envtl. Confederation of Sw. Fla., Inc. v. State, 852 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Lescher v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 946 So. 2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“The legislature then adopted the provision as an amendment to section 322.271(4), effective July 1, 2003.”), review g…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Tormey v. Moore, 824 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2002)