Each year, Stetson Law Review publishes a selection of Stetson Law Review Associate-authored digests of major local-government cases decided in Florida over the past year. Each digest provides a concise, detailed summary of a case representing a significant recent development in a field related to local government law, along with references to additional research on the case’s primary topics. This year’s digests were written by Paul Castellano, Mackenzie Herman, Cheyanne Sharp, Dustin Shore, Morgan Stemple, and Kayla Somoano and edited by Caleb Spano. 

By Jonathan Gardner*

This Article explores a problematic “Necessity Exception” that some courts have applied to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Necessity Exception serves to victimize innocent bystanders by denying them reimbursement when their property is damaged by destructive law enforcement activity. While it is sometimes necessary for police to use destructive tactics when enforcing the law, this Article argues that innocent property owners should not be forced to foot the bill. By first exploring the historical context of the Necessity Exception and recounting the stories of private property owners who have been victimized by it, this Article then argues that this limitation on the Takings Clause is outdated and unwarranted. The conclusion examines practical solutions that would ensure a fair and workable balance between public safety and private property rights. 

By Caitlin Carson Carey*

Since the regular legislative session in 1980, victims of drunk driving accidents in Florida have been essentially barred from the ability to seek meaningful redress for their injuries. With the passage of Florida Statute Section 768.125, Florida’s Dram Shop Act, plaintiffs in drunk driving accidents have largely been unable to hold commercial alcohol vendors accountable for negligent alcohol service unless the tortfeasor is a minor or a habitual drunkard. Even these two exceptions to the statute are not well defined and contain affirmative defenses to protect vendors, causing the statute to operate as an anti-dram shop law. This Article explores the conditions under which this legislation was developed and discusses the tragic consequences that have come from its passage. This Article then argues by analogy that Florida Statute Section 768.125 should be declared unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution. 

This Article suggests several concurrent legislative changes to protect the right to meaningful redress for Florida citizens and visitors of the state. First, Section 768.125 should be amended to include affirmative dram shop language. Second, Florida Statute Section 561.705, the Responsible Vendors Act, should be amended to require vendors to implement increased training and notice standards statewide, and to implement a licensing program to offset some of the costs of increased safe service enforcement. Finally, the legislature should create a Penny for the People Fund, placing a $0.01 tax on every alcoholic beverage sale to create a fund that would support victims of drunk driving accidents and their families after a drunk driving accident. 

By Eric Nelson*

On March 24, 2023, HB 837 was signed into effect by Governor Ron DeSantis. This far-reaching tort reform materially changed many aspects of civil litigation that were once thought to be etched in stone. This Article examines these material changes brought about by the passage of Florida House Bill 837 (“HB 837”) and discusses four main constitutional challenges to their validity. By tracing Florida’s illustrious history of tort litigation, the Article contextualizes the bill within the state’s broader legal landscape, analyzing the need for the current tort reform while highlighting the shortcomings of past reforms. It delves into the bill’s key provisions, explains relevant constitutional principles, and predicts the success of potential arguments that could arise in litigation. Ultimately, the piece offers insights into how HB 837 may reshape the state’s civil justice system and provokes new debates over the balance between legislative reform and constitutional protections. 

By E.A. Zott*

In recent years, legislation targeting transgender individuals has increased exponentially nationwide. As a result, an increasing number of transgender employees must decide between being comfortable in their own skin or being safe in their workplace. Even where legislation does not explicitly restrict how a transgender employee can show up to work, the intersection of facially neutral, broadly written caselaw and anti-transgender policies can create additional challenges for transgender employees. 

This Article looks at one such intersection, examining the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Green v. Finkelstein, where the court found effective office management can outweigh a public employee’s interest in freedom of speech if the employee’s speech frustrated the office’s mission, thus eliminating First Amendment protection for the employee. Specifically, this Article examines how the broad language of the Green decision creates a work environment where transgender public employees must exercise extreme care in what they say about their experiences.

By Setyo Laksono*

In Pinellas County v. Joiner, the Florida Supreme Court held that a county may levy ad valorem taxes on the real property of another county that is located within the taxing county’s borders. To reach its decision, the Florida Supreme Court balanced a county’s power to levy and generate revenue with preserving a county’s remaining sovereign immunity privileges and protections. This Article will examine the court’s balancing of these two interests and provide the potential legal consequences of the Joiner decision. 

By Kasey A. Feltner*

To address the inconsistencies in Florida’s statutory and municipal frameworks for vacating rights-of-way and replats, this Article suggests two main reforms. Firstly, it calls for the creation of a standardized model ordinance to offer municipalities consistent guidance while maintaining procedural transparency and uniformity. Secondly, it proposes changes to the statutes to align and clarify Florida’s governing laws, ensuring that municipal discretion operates within the limits of legal uniformity. Additionally, this Article recognizes the difficulty of balancing local home rule authority with state-level preemption and recommends that future legislative efforts should aim to refine this balance to enhance efficiency and legal clarity in land use governance. 

By Heather Fisher Lindsay*

This Article explores whether Florida’s Public Whistleblower’s Act (“PWA”) is sufficiently effective to promote needed disclosures from honest public servants to ensure the integrity of government aligning with the State of Florida’s Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Consistent with the constitutional principle that a “public office is a public trust,” a whistleblower can ensure the integrity of government by disclosing information necessary for accountability by those who are violating the law or engaged in waste, fraud, or abuse of their position. Yet, the PWA does not apparently provide enough protection to honest public servants based on the recent decision, City of Hallandale Beach v. Rosemond, 388 So. 3d 826, 832 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App.), review denied, No. SC2024-1265 (Fla. Dec. 20, 2024). This Article explores the pitfalls created by a stingy interpretation and application of the PWA as well as possible statutory amendments to address those pitfalls. The Article additionally suggests community engagement to establish ethical norms and means of enforcement at the local level.