5/18/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAY 18 193arc ; The appellants Reynolds, Smith & Bills, etc., et al. filed their initial brief 'in the supreme court, and on March 15, 1983, the last day on which we could do so, having heard nothing in response to our motion to dismiss the appeal, we served our answer brief on behalf of the. City of Jacksonville and mailed it to the clerk of the supreme court, raising as the first point that the supreme court did not have jurisdiction. On the following day, March 16, 1983, the supreme court entered the order a copy of which is enclosed, in the caption referring to Reynolds, Smith & Hills et al. as petitioners rather than appellants and to City of Jacksonville as respondent rather than appellee, denying the motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and ordering the parties to file "Jurisdictional briefs directed to this Court's discretionary jurisdiction under article V, Section 3(b)(3):' Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(3), Fla. Const., provides that the supreme court "May review any decision of a district court of appeal that expressly declares valid a state statute, or that expressly contrues a provision of the state or federal constitution, or that expressly affects a class of constitutional or state officers, or that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law.". Obviously, the decision of the district court in this case does not fit any of those categories. There was no contention by the attorneys for Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al., that the supreme court should take jurisdiction in this manner, but of course they now contend to that effect. While all this was going on in the supreme court, motions were filed in the supreme court pursuant to Rule 9.370 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure by the Florida Association of the American Institute of Architects, the Florida Engineering Society, the American Consulting Engineers Council, and the National Society of Professional Engineers for entry of orders giving each of them leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of the position taken by Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al. The clerk of the supreme court has written to each of the attorneys who filed such a motion a letter saying that the motion "will be submitted to the Court if jurisdiction is accepted." On the supposition that the motions filed by those organizations for leave to file an amicus curiae brief may have an effect on any decision the court makes as to whether the decision of the district court should be reviewed by the supreme court, the General Counsel of the City of Jacksonville has suggested that you might wish to file with the supreme court a motion something like the enclosed for leave to file an amicus curiae brief if the supreme court accepts jurisdiction of the case. In the event you should be given leave to file an amicus curiae brief, I will be happy to send you copies of the briefs already filed by the parties, so that you ,will not need to do great labor on your amicus curiae brief unless you feel so inclined. Sincerely, Roger J. Waybright Telephone: 1/904/633-2149 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously authorized the Attorney to file the amicus curiae brief as requested by the City of Jacksonville.