State, Board of Education v. Azer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State, Board of Education v. Azer

832 So. 2d 787, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12350, 2002 WL 1971942

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 28, 2002

DocketNo. 1D02-1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 832 So. 2d 787 (State, Board of Education v. Azer) 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

State, Board of Education v. Azer, 832 So. 2d 787, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12350, 2002 WL 1971942 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Relying upon Florida Rule Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii), the Board of Education seeks review of a non-final order by which the trial court determined that the Board is not entitled to immunity as to various counts of a complaint arising under federal law. But the rule specifically limits its application to claims of “absolute or qualified immunity in a civil rights claim arising under federal law....” As was recently observed by the fourth district, these words are intended to cover only the kind of immunity — absolute or qualified — claimed by individual officials who are not entitled to the “constitutional design” immunity protected by the Eleventh Amendment. See Jenne v. Maranto, 825 So.2d 409(Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The Board is obviously not an individual official lacking entitlement to constitutional design immunity. Accordingly, because the rule does not provide a basis for our exercise of jurisdiction, and because the Board does not wish this court to review the non-final order pursuant to our certiorari jurisdiction, this appeal is dismissed and the Board’s pending motions are denied as moot.

ALLEN, C.J., BOOTH and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Relying upon Florida Rule Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vii), the Board of Education seeks review of a non-final order by which the trial court determined that the Board is not entitled to immunity as to various counts of a complaint arising under federal law. But the rule specifically limits its application to claims of “absolute or qualified immunity in a civil rights claim arising under federal law....” As was recently observed by the fourth district, these words are intended to cover only the kind of immunity — absolute or qualified — claimed by individual officials who are not entitled to the “constitutional design” immunity protected by the Eleventh Amendment. See Jenne v. Maranto, 825 So.2d 409(Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The Board is obviously not an individual official lacking entitlement to constitutional design immunity. Accordingly, because the rule does not provide a basis for our exercise of jurisdiction, and because the Board does not wish this court to review the non-final order pursuant to our certiorari jurisdiction, this appeal is dismissed and the Board’s pending motions are denied as moot.

ALLEN, C.J., BOOTH and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

832 So. 2d 787, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 12350, 2002 WL 1971942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-board-of-education-v-azer-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack