DEERBROOKE INVESTMENTS, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, RESPONDENT; FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, PETITIONER, V. DEERBROOKE INVESTMENTS, INC., RESPONDENT
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 determined it had jurisdiction and granted petitions for review.
The court reviewed consolidated cases, referencing prior decisions and conflicts between appellate districts. The court had previously approved one de…
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 Conflict Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Deerbrooke Investments, Inc. v. Florida Department of Revenue, 861 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), which relied upon New Sea Escape Cruises, Ltd. v. Florida Department of Revenue, 823 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (New Sea Escape I), approved, 894 So. 2d 954 (Fla.2005). This Court granted review of New Sea Escape I based on express and direct conflict with Dream Boat, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 28 Fla.
L. Weekly D837, — So. 2d -, 2003 WL 1560175 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 27, 2003), quashed, 911 So. 2d 80 (Fla.2005). See Florida Dep’t of Revenue v. New Sea Escape Cruises, Ltd., 845 So. 2d 889 (Fla.2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. In Florida Department of Revenue v. New Sea Escape Cruises, Ltd., 894 So. 2d 954 (Fla.2005) (New Sea Escape II), this Court approved the decision in New Sea Escape I and disapproved the decision in Dream Boat.
Accordingly, and upon review of the parties’ responses to this Court’s Order to Show Cause dated June 27, 2005, the Court has determined that it should accept jurisdiction in these consolidated cases. It is ordered that the petitions for review are granted, and these matters are remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court’s decision in New Sea Escape II. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court.
It is so ordered. PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deerbrooke Invs., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF State, 919 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ion in light of the supreme court’s [*692] opinion in Florida Department of Revenue v. New Sea Escape Cruises, Ltd., 894 So. 2d 954 (Fla.2005), addressing the limits of Florida’s territorial waters. Deerbrooke Inv., Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Revenue, 914 So. 2d 949 (Fla.2005). Deerbrooke contends that, because its vessel traveled to a point outside of Florida territorial waters, it was engaged in foreign commerce for which it could not be subject to Florida tax pursuant to section 212.05, Florida Statutes. S…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. NEW SEA Escape Cruises, Ltd., 894 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 2005)
- NEW SEA Escape Cruises, Ltd. v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue, 823 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Deerbrooke Invs., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue, 861 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Dream Boat, Inc. v. Dep't OF Revenue, 921 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Dream Boat, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue, 911 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2005)