MR v. State
| Decision Date | 14 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. SC00-2478.,SC00-2478. |
| Citation | 788 So.2d 957 |
| Parties | M.R., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Brad Permar, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, FL, for Petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Respondent.
We have for review M.R. v. State, 777 So.2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), in which the Second District Court of Appeal certified the following questions to be of great public importance:
Id. at 995. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
In T.M. v. State, 784 So.2d 442 (Fla. 2001), we answered the first certified question by holding that strict scrutiny applies to juvenile curfew ordinances. As in T.M., we decline to answer the second certified question, quash the decision of the district court, and remand this case for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. JP
...So.2d 952, 952 (Fla.2001); J.A. v. State, 788 So.2d 953, 954 (Fla.2001); D.N.S. v. State, 788 So.2d 955, 955 (Fla.2001); M.R. v. State, 788 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla.2001).1 This Court recognizes that foreign jurisdictions addressing the constitutionality of juvenile curfew ordinances have incorp......
- Lundy v. State