KAREN MARCUS, SHELLEY VANA, PRISCILLA A. TAYLOR, BURT AARONSON, JESS R. SANTAMARIA, AND PALM BEACH COUNTY, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE SENATE FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., 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.
Palm Beach County Commissioners and Palm Beach County appealed a trial court's dismissal of their declaratory and injunctive relief claims against the Florida Senate and House of Representatives, challenging the constitutionality of section 790.33 (the firearms preemption statute). The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that neither legislative body was a proper defendant because neither was designated as the enforcing authority of the statute and the declaratory action did not implicate a broad constitutional duty of the State with specific responsibilities assigned to the legislative bodies.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that neither the Florida Senate nor the Florida House of Representatives was a proper defendant. The proper defendant in a lawsuit challenging a statute's constitutionality is the state official designated to enforce the statute, and neither legislative body was designated as the enforcing authority of section 790.33. Additionally, the declaratory action did not involve a broad constitutional duty of the State implicating specific responsibilities of the legislative bodies.
[1] A legislative body is not a proper defendant in a lawsuit challenging a statute's constitutionality when it has not been designated as the enforcing authority of that sta…
[2] A declaratory action challenging a statute's constitutionality is properly dismissed against legislative bodies when the action does not involve a duty or responsibility…
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“The proper defendant in a lawsuit challenging a statute's constitutionality is the state official designated to enforce the statute.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for determining proper defendants in constitutional challenges to statutes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalm Beach County Commissioners and Palm Beach County filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Florida Senate and Florida Hous…
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 Proper Party Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, Palm Beach County Commissioners and Palm Beach County, appeal a partial final judgment in which the trial court dismissed with prejudice their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against Appellees, the Florida Senate and the Florida House of Representatives, on the basis that neither was a proper defendant. We affirm. Neither legislative body has been designated as the enforcing authority of section 790.33, the statute at issue.1 See Atwater v. City of Weston, 64 So.3d 701, 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“The proper defendant in a lawsuit challenging a statute’s constitutionality is the state official designated to enforce the statute.”). Nor does the declaratory action at issue in this ease involve a duty or responsibility of the State implicating specific responsibilities of Appellees. See id. at 704 (holding that the trial court erred in not dismissing the Senate President and House Speaker from the lawsuit seeking to invalidate an act relating to growth management because the declaratory action did not in*449volve a broad constitutional duty of the State implicating specific responsibilities of the appellants). Cf. Coal. for Adequacy & Fairness in Sch. Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So.2d 400, 402-03 (Fla.1996) (holding that the Florida Senate and Florida House, acting through their respective presiding officers, were proper parties in the action seeking a declaration that the State failed to provide its students the fundamental right to an adequate education by not allocating adequate resources); Brown v. Butterworth, 831 So.2d 683, 684-90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (noting that three members of Congress and a qualified voter filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the Florida Legislature’s reapportionment of their Congressional districts and explaining that “[wjhile we agree that the President of the Florida Senate is not an indispensable party to this gerrymandering claim, we nevertheless do hold that he is a proper party, one certainly with a cognizable interest in the action”).
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. Francati, 214 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…by three factors. The determination begins with ascertaining whether the named state official is charged with enforcing the statute. Haridopolos v. Alachua Cty., 65 So. 3d 577, 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also Marcus v. State Senate for the State, 115 So. 3d 448, 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that state legislators were not proper parties to an action challenging a statute that preempted county and municipal regulation of firearms and ammunition because the legislators were not designated as the enforcem…
-
Fla. Dep't of Transp. & The Fla. House of Representatives v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Expressway Auth. (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…1949)). See also Rhea v. District Bd. of Trustees of Santa Fe College, 109 So. 3d 851, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). And of course, a declaratory judgment action must name a proper party as defendant. See Marcus v. State Senate for the State of Fla., 115 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Petitioners, therefore, may raise these cognizable issues in the pending appeal of the partial summary judgment, although we do not now pass on the validity of any argument Petitioners may raise in that appeal. Because it has n…
Authorities Cited
- Coal. FOR Adequacy & Fairness IN Sch. Funding, Inc. v. Lawton Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1996)
- Representative Corrine Brown v. Butterworth, 831 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Honorable Jeff Atwater v. City OF Weston, 64 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)