Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves the review of final orders by the Public Service Commission (PSC) approving proposals from four electric utility companies to enhance the power grid's resilience against extreme weather. These proposals were submitted under section 366.96, Florida Statutes, enacted in 2019. The Office of Public Counsel (OPC) challenged the PSC's orders, arguing that the PSC misinterpreted the statute and compromised the fairness of the proceedings by striking portions of an expert's testimony.Previously, the PSC approved the initial Storm Protection Plans (SPPs) submitted by the utilities in 2020, following settlements that allowed for future challenges to the prudence of the projects. In 2022, the utilities submitted updated SPPs for the 2023-2032 period. The PSC issued final orders approving the SPPs, with some modifications, and the OPC appealed these orders.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case and held that the PSC correctly interpreted the statute and acted within its authority. The Court found that the PSC's determination of the public interest did not require a prudence review of the SPPs at the plan approval stage. Instead, the prudence review is to be conducted during the cost recovery proceedings. The Court also held that the PSC did not abuse its discretion in striking the expert testimony, as it contained impermissible legal opinions.The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the PSC's final orders, concluding that the PSC properly considered the statutory factors and provided adequate support for its public interest determination. The Court also found that the exclusion of the expert testimony did not impair the fairness of the proceedings. View "Citizens of the State of Florida v. Fay" on Justia Law

Adam Richardson, a citizen and taxpayer, petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for writs of quo warranto and mandamus, alleging that the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) violated section 104.31, Florida Statutes, by advocating against a proposed constitutional amendment (Amendment 4) related to abortion rights. Richardson claimed that their actions, including statements on an AHCA webpage and social media, as well as participation in a public call and opinion piece, unlawfully interfered with the vote on Amendment 4.The lower courts did not review this case as it was directly brought to the Supreme Court of Florida. Richardson argued that the respondents' actions violated a statute limiting political activities of state officers and employees, which he believed should be enforced through extraordinary writs.The Supreme Court of Florida denied the petition. The court held that the writ of quo warranto is traditionally used to test the right of a person to hold an office or exercise a state-derived power, not to compel criminal prosecution or enable private enforcement of a criminal statute. The court found that Richardson's grievances were more about the merits of the respondents' actions rather than their authority to act. Additionally, the court denied the writ of mandamus, stating that Richardson did not establish a clear legal right or an indisputable legal duty on the part of the respondents, nor did he show that there was no other adequate remedy available. The court concluded that no further relief was required to complete the exercise of its jurisdiction and denied the petition without permitting a rehearing. View "Richardson v. Secretary, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration" on Justia Law

The case involves a petition for a writ of quo warranto challenging the authority of the Financial Impact Estimating Conference to issue a revised financial impact statement for a proposed constitutional amendment titled “Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion.” The petitioners, Floridians Protecting Freedom and Sara Latshaw, argue that the Estimating Conference acted beyond its authority. The respondents include the Financial Impact Estimating Conference, its four principals, the President of the Florida Senate, and the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.The Estimating Conference initially submitted a financial impact statement in November 2023. Following a Florida Supreme Court decision in April 2024, which did not address the financial impact statement, the petitioners filed a declaratory judgment action in circuit court, claiming the original statement was outdated and misleading. The circuit court ruled in favor of the petitioners, remanding the statement for redrafting. The government appealed, but the First District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot after the Estimating Conference voluntarily issued a revised statement in July 2024. The petitioners then sought relief from the Florida Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Florida denied the petition for a writ of quo warranto. The Court held that the petitioners waived or forfeited their right to challenge the Estimating Conference’s authority by actively participating in the revision process without objecting to the Conference’s authority. The Court emphasized that the petitioners had accepted the legality of the revision process and focused on influencing the content of the revised statement. Consequently, the Court did not address the merits of the petition or the substantive legality of the revised financial impact statement. View "Floridians Protecting Freedom, Inc. v. Passidomo" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Pinellas County and Pasco County in Florida. Pinellas County owns approximately 12,400 acres of real estate in neighboring Pasco County. Although Pinellas County once paid ad valorem taxes to Pasco County for the property, it now asserts that sovereign immunity relieves it of that obligation. Pinellas County filed a lawsuit against the Pasco County Property Appraiser, seeking a judgment declaring the property immune from ad valorem taxes and an injunction prohibiting future assessment and collection of such taxes.The trial court ruled in favor of Pinellas County, holding that as a political subdivision of the state, Pinellas County is entitled to sovereign immunity, which includes immunity from the ad valorem taxation of its properties, regardless of whether those properties are located within the boundaries of Pinellas County or in another county within the state of Florida. The Pasco County Property Appraiser appealed this decision.The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling. The district court noted that each county has statutory and constitutional authority to assess ad valorem taxes on “all property in the county.” The district court also rejected Pinellas County’s primary contention that its immunity from taxation extends beyond its own borders, noting that Pinellas County had not identified any supporting authority.The Supreme Court of Florida disagreed with Pinellas County's argument that its property in Pasco County was not taxable based on principles of sovereign immunity. The court held that although a county’s real property is immune from that county’s own efforts to assess ad valorem taxes, Pinellas County has not identified any authority recognizing an immunity from taxation of the county’s property located beyond its territorial boundaries. Therefore, the court concluded that sovereign immunity does not shield a county from the obligation of paying ad valorem taxes for property owned by that county but located outside its territorial boundaries. The court approved the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal. View "Pinellas County, Florida v. Joiner" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Monique H. Worrell, who was suspended from her position as State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit by Governor Ron DeSantis through Executive Order 23-160. The order alleged that during Worrell's tenure, the administration of criminal justice in the Ninth Circuit was fundamentally derelict, constituting both neglect of duty and incompetence. The order detailed that Worrell authorized or allowed charging practices that permitted violent offenders, drug traffickers, serious juvenile offenders, and pedophiles to evade incarceration when otherwise warranted under Florida law. It also alleged that Worrell authorized or allowed practices that prevented assistant state attorneys from seeking certain sentencing enhancements and limited charges for possession of child pornography.The Florida Constitution allows the governor to suspend any state officer not subject to impeachment for neglect of duty or incompetence. Worrell, not being subject to impeachment, was constitutionally subject to suspension. The Florida Senate has the power to remove from office or reinstate the suspended official.The Supreme Court of Florida's role was to determine whether the governor had met the constitutional mandate to state the grounds of the officer's suspension. The court's review was deferential, confirming that the governor had specified the applicable grounds for suspension and that the allegations in the suspension order bore a reasonable relation to the asserted basis for the suspension.The Supreme Court of Florida found that the Executive Order passed this test. It named the grounds for Worrell's suspension—neglect of duty and incompetence—and provided various factual allegations that reasonably related to those grounds of suspension. The court disagreed with Worrell's claim that the allegations in the Executive Order were impermissibly vague or that they addressed conduct that fell within the lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Therefore, the court denied Worrell's petition for a writ of quo warranto. View "Worrell v. DeSantis" on Justia Law

In this review of a decision of the Public Service Commission relating to rates charged by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) for the provision of electric service, the Supreme Court held that the Commission had not supplied a basis for meaningful judicial review of its conclusion that the settlement agreement provided a reasonable resolution of the issues, established reasonable rates, and was in the public interest.The settlement agreement at issue was between FPL and seven parties that intervened in the matter and permitted FPL to increase its base rates and service charges. After hearing arguments in favor of and against the settlement agreement the Commission concluded that the agreement "provides a reasonable resolution of all issues raised, establishes rates that are fair, just, and reasonable, and is in the public interest." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand was required because the Commission failed to perform its duty to explain its reasoning. View "Floridians Against Increased Rates, Inc. v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Petitioner, who was ordered to show cause why she should not be further sanctioned and barred from filing any pro se pleadings in the Supreme Court, had abused the Court's limited judicial resources and directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings or other requests for relief submitted by Petitioner, unless such filings were signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. The Court further denied any pending motions or requests for relief, holding that based on Petitioner's history of filing pro se petitions and requests for relief that were meritless or otherwise inappropriate for appellate review, Petitioner failed to show cause why she should not be sanctioned. View "A.C. v. Dep't of Children & Families" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the Florida Public Service Commission denying Duke Energy Florida, LLC's (DEF) request to recover approximately $16 from its customers for costs DEF incurred to meet its customers' demand for electricity, holding that the cost recovery should have been allowed.The costs at issue were incurred when a 420-megawatt (MW) steam-powered generating unit went offline at DEF's Bartow plant and was placed back in service at a derated capacity of 380 MW. After a hearing, an administrative law judge entered a recommended order denying cost recovery. The commission adopted the ALJ's recommendation in the final order on appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the factual findings forming the basis for the ALJ's ultimate causation determination were not supported by competent, substantial evidence. View "Duke Energy Florida, LLC v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Fla. Stat. 120.68(3), which entitles a party to a presumptive stay upon the appeal of an agency decision that "has the effect of suspending or revoking a license," does not apply to an agency decision to administratively withdraw an incomplete renewal license application.When Ybor Medical Injury and Accident Clinic, Inc. (the clinic), applied to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to renew its expiring license the AHCA invited the clinic to supplement its application, which was incomplete. After the clinic failed to do so, AHCA administratively withdrew the incomplete renewal license application from further consideration. The AHCA appealed and sought a presumptive stay under section 120.68(3). The court of appeals granted the presumptive stay. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding that the appeal of an agency’s withdrawal decision does not trigger the statute’s presumptive stay provision. View "Agency for Health Care Administration v. Ybor Medical Injury & Accident Clinic, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim failed because he received adequate consideration in exchange for the challenged fee when he took advantage of the privilege of using his credit card to pay the penalty.Plaintiff filed a putative class action arguing that a convenience fee that Plaintiff paid in connection with a penalty he paid with his credit card to the City of North Miami Beach. Plaintiff argued that the convenience fee was statutorily prohibited and that American Traffic Solutions, Inc. (ATS), with whom the City had contracted to issue and mail citations and process violators' payments of the civil penalties imposed, was unjustly enriched by retaining the fee. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals certified a question to the Supreme Court, which answered that Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim failed because he had not alleged a benefit conferred and accepted which would be unjust for ATS to retain. View "Pincus v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law