STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
LUIS ALFREDO LUCIANO, 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 exercised jurisdiction to review a conflict between appellate districts and quashed the decision under review.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with a Third District decision that was pending review by the Florida Supreme Court. Proceedings…
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 Certified Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review Luciano v. State, 983 So.2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Valdes v. State, 970 So.2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), approved in restdt, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2009). At the time the Fifth District issued its decision in Luciano, the Third District’s Valdes decision was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3)-(4), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed proceedings in the present case pending disposition of Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla.2009), in which we ultimately approved the result of the Third District’s underlying Valdes decision. Once our decision in Valdes was final, we issued an order in the present case directing Respondent to show cause why we should not exercise jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision being reviewed, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Valdes. Respondent in his response acknowledges the controlling authority of this Court’s Valdes decision.
We accordingly exercise jurisdiction and grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Fifth District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s Valdes decision.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2017)…‘a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; lack of an adequate remedy at law; irreparable harm absent the entry of an injunction; and that injunctive relief will serve the public interest.’ ” Liberty Counsel v. Florida Bar Bd. of Governors, 12 So. 3d 183, 186 n.7 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Reform Party of Fla. v. Black, 885 So. 2d 303, 305 (Fla. 2004)). “Clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings must support each of the four conclusions necessary to justify entry of a preliminary inju…
-
Neapolitan Enters., LLC v. The City OF Naples, 185 So. 3d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…alleged that the Planning Director engaged in an ultra vires act. A municipality “engages in an ‘ultra vires’ act when it lacks the authority to take the action under statute or its own governing laws.” Liberty Counsel v. Fla. Bar Bd. of Governors, 12 So. 3d 183, 191—92 (Fla.2009). Declaratory judgment actions regarding ultra vires acts are recognized as to private actors and as to local governments. See Beau Monde, Inc. v. Bramson, 446 So. 2d 164, 166-67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (affirming declaratory judgment w…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Eli Enrique Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009)
- Eli Enrique Valdes v. State, 970 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Luciano v. State, 983 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)