Be Careful What You Wish For!

You know how you completely fail to raise an important Constitutional argument at any point below and then you try to convince the 11th to consider it anyways?
Blue Martini appeals from that indemnification ruling, now claiming for the first time that the Florida statute wrongfully deprived it of property in violation of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.  Blue Martini suggests that it cannot be lawfully required to bear the financial burden of liability sustained on account of actions that the County’s police officers were legally obliged to perform. 
Notwithstanding having failed to raise the constitutional question in the district court, Blue Martini argues that this Court should exercise its discretion to hear the constitutional challenge because it raises a pure question of law, is likely to arise regularly in Miami-Dade County, and raises an issue of great public concern.
Because we are satisfied that the constitutional question raised is purely a legal one, and an easy one at that, and because the matter is likely to arise again, we exercise our discretion to entertain the claim.
Now other shoe, it shall drop:
After thorough review, we hold that Fla. Stat. § 30.2905 reasonably serves a variety of legitimate governmental interests, easily passes rational basis scrutiny, and, therefore, does not violate the due process clause.  Accordingly, we affirm.
Drop the mic!


  1. consider writing about the earlier case decided today: prima facie case and evidence of pretext yet a per curiam one paragraph affirmance? if it is a "rare case" isn't that worthy of explanation to the public and bar?? at least attach the dj opinion? how lazy are appellate judges nowadays. Fed ct should not treat litigants like state court. (p.s. not related to any party or atty in that case)

  2. at 12:35

    "Fed ct should not treat litigants like state court."

    Why not, The Florida Bar is the puppeteer of state and federal judges.


Post a Comment