Laserfiche WebLink
FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF VS. REYNOLDS, SMITH & HILLS VS. <br />CITY OF JACKSONVILLE <br />The Board reviewed the -following letter to Attorney <br />Brandenburg from the Attorney for the City of Jacksonville: <br />DAWSON A MCQUAIG <br />GENERAL COUNSEL <br />THOMAS It WELCH <br />FOIST ASSISTANT COUNSEL <br />GERALD A. SCHNEIDER <br />FIRST ASSISTANT COUNSEL <br />ROGER J. WAYBRIGHT <br />or COUNSEL <br />�aLGr <br />OFFICE OF <br />GENERAL COUNSEL <br />CITY OF JACKSONVILLE <br />1300 CRY HALL <br />JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202-3494 <br />904/633.2460 <br />May 5, 1983 <br />Mr. Gary M. Brandenburg <br />County Attorney of Indian River County <br />1840 25th Street <br />Vero Beach, Florida 32960 <br />Dear Mr. Brandenburg: <br />s <br />�Z 19 <br />w (C,_C2 CIO% <br />J, <br />A#to <br />OfF�e �eJ"s <br />WILLIAM LEE ALLEN <br />CWEF OF LffeATfON <br />ROBERT G. ALEXANDER <br />ASSISTANT CHIEF OF LMOATION <br />PHILLIP & COPE <br />CNIEF LEOtSLAME COUNSEL <br />WILLIAM R. MERWIN <br />CWEF EOITORML COUNSEL <br />Re: Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al., v. <br />City of Jacksonville; Case No. 63,187 in <br />the Supreme Court of Florida <br />On December 10, 1982, the First District Court of Appeal of Florida handed <br />down its decision in City of Jacksonville v. Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al., <br />424 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), holding that Sections 130.301 et seq. of the <br />Ordinance Code of the City of Jacksonville were not inconsistent with the <br />Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act, Section 287.055, Florida Statutes <br />(1981). A copy of that decision is enclosed. <br />The losing appellees (Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al.) filed a "motion for <br />rehearing or for clarification" in the district court, re -arguing their contentions <br />and asking that, if the district "Court will not grant rehearing, or affirm the trial <br />court's opinion, appellees respectfully request the Court, on its own motion, certify <br />the issues herein to the Supreme Court of Florida as a "question of great public <br />importance". The district court denied that motion. <br />Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al., then filed a notice of appeal to the <br />Supreme Court of Florida asserting in the notice of appeal that it was an appeal <br />from "a final order that has, de facto, declared Florida Statute .5287.055 invalid". <br />We promptly filed a motion on behalf of the City of Jacksonville to dismiss <br />the appeal for want of jurisdiction, pointing out in the motion that, while under <br />Art. V, §3(b)(1), Fla. Const., the supreme court has jurisdiction to "hear appeals ... <br />from decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute", the <br />decision of the district court is obviously not such a decision, and saying that to <br />attempt to confer jurisdiction on the supreme court which it does not have by the <br />ridiculous device of labeling the district court decision "a final order that has, de <br />facto, declared Florida Statute §237.055 invalid" is at the least an impertinence <br />that should not long be tolerated. <br />MAY 18 1983 74 B90K 53 PAct 553 <br />