The oldest and most respected privilege known to the legal profession is the attorney-client privilege. The confidentiality inherent in the privilege lies at the heart of the American judicial system. It is well accepted and generally understood that communications between an attorney and an individual client are confidential. Confidentiality encourages people to seek legal assistance early and promotes commnication between the attorney and the client. Only when the attorney receives full and frank information from the client can the proper legal opinion be formed and advice rendered to the client.

In the nineteenth century, the term “law of storms” described rules of navigation, which, when followed, would allow a sailing vessel to avoid the most dangerous and violent parts of a hurricane. Like the nineteenth century mariners, twenty-first century local governments confront challenges from natural and man-made disasters and might benefit from a discussion of the applicable law under which they will have to navigate through such disasters. Indeed, leading climatologists predict an increase in the number and severity of hurricanes in the coming decades. “Florida is more susceptible to hurricanes than any other state.” Because of Florida’s population concentrations, hurricanes threaten the safety of large numbers of people and have the potential to cause extensive property damage. Florida also is threatened by wildfires, which result from a dangerous combination of droughts and lightning. Local governments must act exigently to protect their citizens from the threat of hurricanes and wildfires and the havoc they cause.

The simple phrase “as is” is widely used in today’s transactional society. But what exactly is “as is?” More specifically, what are the legal effects in Florida of including “as is” language in a contract, and how does “as is” impact different causes of action in Florida? This Article answers these questions and their permutations by compiling and analyzing the numerous Florida cases that have construed “as is” provisions.

After some groundbreaking years throughout the 1980s and 1990s, land use law in Florida has seen a slow down in dramatic legal developments. The last few years have solidified established principles through continued application to new fact patterns. The end of the last decade saw a number of courts apply existing law at the furthest boundaries of existing principles. Some encroaching inconsistencies are beginning to call for Florida Supreme Court consideration or legislative adjustment, but in great part, the cases have produced predictable results based on known standards. Perhaps the newest development is judicial expectation that the land use community readily will understand and properly apply the legal principles in this field.

It has been fifteen years since the Florida legislature ushered in a new growth management era by enacting major amendments
to Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act (Planning Act). The 1985 Planning Act amendments restructured and revised the methods whereby local governments manage the unremitting growth pressures created by an expanding population. They also updated the requirements for the content of local government comprehensive plans. The state land planning agency, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FLDCA), was directed to flesh out the content requirements through an administrative rule that the legislature subsequently reviewed. For the first time, local governments were required to implement their plans through land development regulations. The experience gained from the application of this new law has led the Author to conclude that major changes, outlined in later sections of this Essay, are necessary for the full potential of comprehensive planning to be achieved.

Consider this problem:

You are a practicing attorney and a member of the audit committee for a large, publicly held corporation, XYZ. One evening, you receive a telephone call from the chief financial officer of XYZ, and she sounds quite distressed. She explains that she has discovered that the corporation has been materially overstating its assets for the last three quarters. As a result, XYZ has published misleading information in its recent annual financial report. She warns you that this will result in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, as well as shareholder class action lawsuits.

After the initial shock disappears, you start thinking about the possibility that you will be subject to liability because of your position on the audit committee. You think back over the last year and remember when you were asked to become a member of the audit committee. The company chose you to serve on the committee because of your accounting background (you have an undergraduate degree in accounting) and your status as an outside director. You knew that the job would include more responsibilities than you already had, but you were ready to accept the challenge. As you understood, it would be your duty to monitor the internal financial reporting process as well as to communicate with the external auditors.

In City of Belle Glade v. Woodson, the Fourth District Court of Appeal was presented with the issue of whether a municipality is entitled to sovereign immunity when a plaintiff brings a personal injury suit as a result of a third-party criminal attack on city-owned property. Woodson presents a hybrid in sovereign immunity case law that has not yet been addressed by Florida courts. Specifically, the case concerns whether, given the facts in Woodson, the city acted in its law enforcement capacity and thus was immune from suit based on Category II in Trianon Park Condominium Association v. City of Hialeah, or whether it waived its immunity and subjected itself to suit for its alleged negligent operation of the civic center under Trianon’s Category III.

The Weltons challenged Oklaloosa County Property Appraiser Timothy “Pete” Smith’s assessment of their homestead property because the increase in the assessment from the 1994 tax year to the 1995 tax year exceeded the limits set forth in Article VII, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, also known as the Save Our Homes Amendment.’ The property appraiser included 15,000 square feet of improvements on the 1995 tax roll that had mistakenly been left off the tax roll since the Weltons acquired the property in 1972. In so doing, Smith relied on Florida Statutes Section 193.155(8), which provides that [e]rroneous assessments of homestead property assessed under this section may be corrected in the following manner:

(a) If errors are made in arriving at any annual assessment under this section due to a material mistake of fact concerning an essential characteristic of the property, the assessment must be recalculated for every such year.

If back taxes are due pursuant to s. 193.092, the corrections made pursuant to this subsection shall be used to calculate such back taxes.

In Florida v. White (White II), the United States Supreme Court brushed aside the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause and held that the seizure of Tyvessel Tyvorus White’s vehicle in a public place pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against warrantless searches and seizures. Police officers seized the vehicle two months after White was observed delivering cocaine from the car. On remand, the Florida Supreme Court in White v. State (White III) ignored a good portion of its earlier opinion in which it found that the warrantless seizure of White’s car pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act violated state constitutional due process principles.

In upholding the warrantless seizure of White’s car, the White II majority did not require the State to provide any compelling reasons for the warrantless seizure.