ELVES JULMIST, JR.
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, ET AL.
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.
Miami-Dade County has exclusive jurisdiction over all traffic control devices in both incorporated and unincorporated areas, and is entitled to sovereign immunity for emergency responses.
[1] A county's traffic and transportation department has exclusive jurisdiction over all traffic control devices in both incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county,…
[2] A government entity is entitled to sovereign immunity for its response to a serious emergency when the entity had to choose between different actions, each of which posed…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“in Florida, the witness's testimony as to the correctness of the [recorded] statement is essential to the admission of the evidence.”
Citation to Polite v. State regarding evidentiary requirements for recorded statements
Elves Julmist, Jr. appealed a circuit court decision involving Miami-Dade County regarding traffic engineering services and traffic control devices.…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 12, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Nos. 3D23-109 & 3D23-687 Lower Tribunal No. 21-20697
Elves Julmist, Jr., Appellant,
vs.
Miami-Dade County, et al., Appellees.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.
Law Offices of Jimmy De La Espriella, and Javier A. Finlay, for appellant.
Fox Rothschild LLP, John R. Herin, Jr., Victor G. Sanabria; Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Daniel Frastai, Assistant County Attorney, for appellees.
Before SCALES, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Miami-Dade County, Fla., Code of Ordinances, ch. 2, art. XIII, § 2-96.1 (2023) (“From and after September 16, 1960, all traffic engineering services shall be performed by the traffic and transportation department, and such department shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all traffic control devices in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county, and shall have exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers, duties and functions set forth herein."); Miami-Dade County, Fla., Code of Ordinances, ch. 2, art. XIII, § 2-95.1(g) (2023) (“The department shall assume full responsibility for the operation, maintenance[,] and replacement of all existing signs[,] signals, and markings now in use in the several municipalities . . . ."); see also Polite v. State, 116 So. 3d 270, 275 (Fla. 2013) ("[I]n Florida, the witness's testimony as to the correctness of the [recorded] statement is essential to the admission of the evidence."); Robles v. Metropolitan Dade County, 802 So. 2d 453, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (upholding sovereign immunity based on emergency exception where county "had to choose between different actions, each of which posed a potential threat to the public"); Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So. 2d 732, 738 n.3 (Fla. 1989) ("The way in which government agents respond to a serious emergency is entitled to great deference, and may in fact reach a level of such urgency as to be considered discretionary and not operational.").
2