Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Miami

143 So. 3d 953, 2014 WL 2753871, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9220
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 18, 2014·No. No. 3D13-2437·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. City of Gainesville, 918 So.2d 250, 256 (Fla.2005) (“[A] determination that a statute is facially unconstitutional means that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid.”); Headley v. City of Miami, 118 So.3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that the City of Miami did not commit unfair labor practices by unilaterally modifying the collective bargaining agreement pursuant to section 447.4095 of the Florida Statutes); see also Hollywood Fire Fighters, Local 1375, IAFF, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 133 So.3d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding implicitly in an as applied challenge that the use of the term “financial urgency” in section 447.4095 is not unconstitutionally vague; certifying conflict on other grounds with Headley).

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

Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Miami, 143 So. 3d 953, 2014 WL 2753871, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 9220 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

143 So. 3d 953 (Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Miami) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20 v. City of Miami
243 So. 3d 894 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)