THE CITY OF ORLANDO ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
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.
This concurring opinion clarifies that a voluntary dismissal of a prior action does not automatically satisfy the requirement for a malicious prosecution claim that the prior proceeding terminated in favor of the claimant, and that such termination is often a question of fact.
The concurring opinion suggests that a voluntary dismissal alone may not be sufficient to establish that a prior proceeding terminated in favor of the claimant for malicious prosecution purposes, and that this determination often requires a factual inquiry into the circumstances.
The case involves a concurring opinion that addresses the legal standard for proving the termination of a prior proceeding in favor of the claimant in…
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 Question cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
This case is before us upon two certified questions propounded to us by the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida. The questions are:
1. Whether the use of public school property located within the city limits and within the school district is subject in any manner to city zoning ordinances.
2. If the above question is answered in the affirmative, what procedural and judicial steps are to be followed in the resolution of land-use disputes between the School Board and the city.
With regard to the first question this Court has already decided the issue in Village of North Palm Beach v. School Board of Palm Beach County, 349 So. 2d 683 (Fla.4th DCA 1977). Unfortunately, the trial court did not have this decision available at the time he certified the questions to us. Nevertheless, we adhere to our ruling in the Village of North Palm Beach case and accordingly answer the first question in the affirmative.
With regard to the second question we find that it does not fall within Rule 4.6, Fla.R.App.P. (1962 Revision) in that our answer, if given, would not be determinative of the cause. Accordingly, we decline to answer the second question. Chapman v. Slaff, 101 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1st DCA 1958); 2 Fla.Jur., “Appeals,” Section 433.
DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gertrude Chapman v. Slaff, 101 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- The Vill. OF N. Palm Beach v. The Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 349 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)