THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

BUDGET COMMISSION OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By (28 total)

• State v. Miami Beach Redev. Agency, 392 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1980)
  …here is no proposed exercise of the eminent domain power and no public indebtedness, subject to the exceptions set out therein. See, e. g., State v. Housing Finance Authority, 376 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1979); State v. Putnam County Development Authority, 249 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1971). The legislature has determined that projects using eminent domain to clear blighted areas and providing for the ultimate disposition of substantial portions of the acquired properties for use by private concerns in profit-making activit…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2005)
  …eadings that would render part of a statute meaningless.” State v. Goode, 830 So. 2d 817, 824 (Fla.2002). Therefore, it is our duty to read the provisions of a statute as consistent with one another, see State v. Putnam County Development Authority, 249 So. 2d 6, 10 (Fla.1971), and to give effect and meaning to the entirety of the legislative enactment at issue. See, e.g., Unruh v. State, 669 So. 2d 242, 245 (Fla.1996). In light of these fundamental principles, we decline to render either subsection (4) or…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• In the Interest of T.M. and F.M., 641 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1994)
  …onstrue the statute as doing so would directly conflict with the language chosen by the legislature to indicate that such a plan or agreement is not required in those circumstances. As this Court held in State v. Putnam County Development Authority, 249 So. 2d 6, 10 (Fla.1971), “[i]t is our duty to read the several provisions of the Act as consistent with one another rather than in conflict, if there is any reasonable basis for consistency.” See also Woodgate Dev. Corp. v. Hamilton Inv. Trust, 351 So. 2d 14…