Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McCoy Restaurants, Inc. v. City of Orlando

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 21, 1985No. 84-98Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSharp, Judge

I agree that the trial court properly dismissed Counts I and IV of the complaint because appellant failed to sufficiently allege standing as a taxpayer to challenge the airline agreements involved in this case,1 and appellant failed to allege a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship in Count II.

I think appellant sufficiently pleaded grounds to challenge the agreements under the Sunshine Law in Count III. § 286.011, Fla.Stat. (1988). The Aviation Authority is a public body to which the Sunshine Law appears applicable. § 286.011(1); Wood v. Marston, 442 So.2d 934…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Town of Palm Beach v. GradisonSupreme Court of Florida · 1974
  2. Wood v. MarstonSupreme Court of Florida · 1983
  3. Neu v. Miami Herald Pub. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1985
  4. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF STATE v. MarkhamSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
  5. Godheim v. City of TampaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API