City of Miami v. Meyer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

City of Miami v. Meyer

614 So. 2d 1109, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10908, 1992 WL 280388

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1297

StatusPublished

This text of 614 So. 2d 1109 (City of Miami v. Meyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Miami v. Meyer, 614 So. 2d 1109, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10908, 1992 WL 280388 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is another case involving the City of Miami’s pension offset ordinance. The City has raised two issues on appeal. The City argues that Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So.2d 252 (Fla.1989) should not be applied retroactively. We have previously decided that it does apply retroactively. City of Miami v. Bell, 606 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); City of Miami v. Burnett, 596 So.2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA1992); City of Daytona Beach v. Amsel, 585 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We see no reason to depart from those holdings.

[1110]*1110The City also argues that it was error to award a ten percent penalty under section 440.20, Florida Statutes (1985) on the retroactively awarded setoff benefits. We find no error in this ruling by the Judge of Compensation Claims for the reasons expressed in our opinion in Bell. Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal. We certify to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance the same question certified in Bell.

Finally, we grant appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees on appeal. As we have in other cases we note that the issues on appeal in this case are largely duplicative of the issues in other cases argued before this court relating to the offset ordinance. We remand the matter to the JCC to determine the amount of attorney’s fees. We direct the JCC’s attention to that part of this court’s opinion in Burnett which dealt with attorney’s fees.

JOANOS, C.J., and BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is another case involving the City of Miami’s pension offset ordinance. The City has raised two issues on appeal. The City argues that Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So.2d 252 (Fla.1989) should not be applied retroactively. We have previously decided that it does apply retroactively. City of Miami v. Bell, 606 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); City of Miami v. Burnett, 596 So.2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA1992); City of Daytona Beach v. Amsel, 585 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We see no reason to depart from those holdings.

[1110]*1110The City also argues that it was error to award a ten percent penalty under section 440.20, Florida Statutes (1985) on the retroactively awarded setoff benefits. We find no error in this ruling by the Judge of Compensation Claims for the reasons expressed in our opinion in Bell. Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal. We certify to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance the same question certified in Bell.

Finally, we grant appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees on appeal. As we have in other cases we note that the issues on appeal in this case are largely duplicative of the issues in other cases argued before this court relating to the offset ordinance. We remand the matter to the JCC to determine the amount of attorney’s fees. We direct the JCC’s attention to that part of this court’s opinion in Burnett which dealt with attorney’s fees.

JOANOS, C.J., and BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 1109, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10908, 1992 WL 280388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-v-meyer-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack