Legal Opinion
City of Aventura v. Masone
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided November 30, 2011No. 3D10-1094PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CORTIÑAS, J.
The City of Aventura (the “City”) seeks review of the trial court’s ruling that section 48-26 of the City’s Code of Ordinances, allowing the use of image capture technologies for monitoring and enforcing laws relating to traffic control signals, is invalid and unenforceable. We reverse.
The City is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, and located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. On October 18, 2007, the City enacted Ordinance 2007-5, inclusive of section 48-26, which in pertinent part, authorized the City to use a monitoring system…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Tribune Co. v. CannellaSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
- City of Miami v. AronovitzSupreme Court of Florida · 1959
- TALLAHASSEE MEM. v. Tallahassee Med. Ctr.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
- Lowe v. Broward CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
- Phantom of Clearwater v. Pinellas CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Richard Masone v. City of AventuraSupreme Court of Florida · 2014
- City of Orlando v. UdowychenkoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2012
- Easter v. City of OrlandoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2018
- Richard Masone v. City of AventuraSupreme Court of Florida · 2014
- Richard Masone v. City of AventuraSupreme Court of Florida · 2014