Puls v. City of Port St. Lucie

678 So. 2d 514, 1996 WL 486562
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 28, 1996
Docket95-3166
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 678 So. 2d 514 (Puls v. City of Port St. Lucie) 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
Puls v. City of Port St. Lucie, 678 So. 2d 514, 1996 WL 486562 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

678 So.2d 514 (1996)

William PULS and Janna Puls, Appellants,
v.
CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE, Donald Cooper, Roger Orr, and Mark Hendricks, Appellees.

No. 95-3166.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

August 28, 1996.

Jeffrey S. Kurtz, Wellington, for appellants.

Rhea P. Grossman of Rhea P. Grossman, P.A., Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

As to the City of Port St. Lucie and city manager Donald Cooper, we reverse the order granting the motion to dismiss. Appellants were the proper party plaintiffs to the lawsuit seeking public records. The complaint facially stated a cause of action for relief under chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1995). Whether or not the custodian designated under section 119.021 was served with a records request is not germane to this lawsuit. Section 119.07(1)(a) imposes a duty of disclosure upon "[e]very person who has custody of a public record." (Emphasis supplied). Under the statute, the custodian, or custodian's designee, supervises the manner of disclosure. § 119.07(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). Production of the records after the lawsuit was filed did not moot the issues raised in the complaint. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether, under the facts of this case, there was an unlawful refusal of access to the records within the meaning of section 119.12(1), Florida Statutes (1995). We affirm the dismissal as to appellees Orr and Hendricks.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cookston v. Office of the Public Defender
204 So. 3d 480 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Schweickert v. Citrus County Florida Board
193 So. 3d 1075 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Consumer Rights, LLC v. Bradford County
153 So. 3d 394 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Johnson v. Jarvis
74 So. 3d 168 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Authority
510 F. Supp. 2d 691 (M.D. Florida, 2007)
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 2004
Mazer v. Orange County
811 So. 2d 857 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Mintus v. City of West Palm Beach
711 So. 2d 1359 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
678 So. 2d 514, 1996 WL 486562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puls-v-city-of-port-st-lucie-fladistctapp-1996.