The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 71615
| Decision Date | 01 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 71615,71615 |
| Citation | 530 So.2d 286,13 Fla. L. Weekly 518 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 518 THE FLORIDA STAR, Appellant, v. B.J.F., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
George K. Rahdert and Bonita M. Riggens of Rahdert, Acosta & Dickson, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., Miami, and Beckham, McAliley & Schulz, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee.
Alan C. Sundberg of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith, Cutler & Kent, Tallahassee, Gerald B. Cope, Jr. and Laura Besvinick of Greer, Homer, Cope & Bonner, P.A., Miami, Richard J. Ovelmen, General Counsel, The Miami Herald Pub. Co., Miami, Paul J. Levine of Spence, Payne, Masington, Grossman & Needle, Miami, Florida; and Sanford L. Bohrer of Thomson, Zeder, Bohrer, Werth & Razook, Miami, Florida, amici curiae for The Miami Herald Pub. Co., The Florida First Amendment Foundation, The Florida Press Ass'n, and The Florida Soc. of Newspaper Editors.
This case is before us on the following question of Florida law certified by the United States Supreme Court:
Whether the Florida Supreme Court had jurisdiction, pursuant to ARTICLE V, § 3(B)(3) OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION1 or otherwise, to hear Appellant's appeal [petition for review] in this cause from the Florida First District Court of Appeal?
The Florida Star v. B.J.F., --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 499, 499, 98 L.Ed.2d 498 (1987). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const. As delimited by this opinion, we answer in the affirmative.
The Florida Star, a Jacksonville newspaper, published the name of a rape victim that police erroneously had included in material released to the press pretrial. There is no dispute that the name should not have been released and that the newspaper itself had a policy against the publication of rape victims' names. Publication appeared to be a criminal violation under section 794.03, Florida Statutes (1985). 2
B.J.F., the rape victim, brought a civil action premised on a statutory duty arising from section 794.03. The Florida Star moved for dismissal based on the ground that the theory of recovery violated the first and fourteenth amendments. In denying this motion, the trial court ruled that no such violation would occur, and it specifically upheld the constitutionality of section 794.03.
On appeal, the Florida Star again challenged the constitutionality of the statute. The district court affirmed but did not discuss section 794.03 except to quote it verbatim, nor did it expressly uphold the statute against appellant's constitutional challenge.
The Florida Star subsequently filed a jurisdictional brief with this Court, seeking discretionary review. Review summarily was denied. The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 509 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1987).
On August 26, 1987, the Florida Star sought review in the United States Supreme Court. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss on grounds the appeal was untimely. Appellee argued that the Florida Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review the case, and that the opinion of the First District thus was the final decision of the highest state court empowered to hear the cause. Under this argument, the Florida Star should have appealed to the United States Supreme Court within ninety days of the First District's opinion. The United States Supreme Court then certified the instant question to this Court.
We do not read the question presented by the Supreme Court as a request to explain the internal mechanism of the court or to attempt the impossible task of second-guessing the original panel's decision on jurisdiction. Nor do we believe, as appellee suggests, that the present court should reexamine the question and decide anew whether conflict existed.
Instead, we limit our answer to the context in which the question was posed. For that sole purpose, we answer the question in the affirmative. This Court in the broadest sense has subject-matter jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, over any decision of a district court that expressly addresses a question of law within the four corners of the opinion itself. 3 That is, the opinion must contain a statement or citation effectively establishing a point of law upon which the decision rests. The opinion in B.J.F. unquestionably met this requirement.
We premise our holding on our conclusion that article V, section 3(b)(3) creates and defines two separate concepts. The first is a general grant of discretionary subject-matter jurisdiction, and the second is a constitutional command as to how the discretion itself may be exercised. In effect, the second is a limiting principle dictated to this Court by the people of Florida. While our subject-matter jurisdiction in conflict cases necessarily is very broad, our discretion to exercise it is more narrowly circumscribed by what the people have commanded:
(b) JURISDICTION.--The supreme court:
....
(3) May review any decision of a district court of appeal ... that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law.
Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Thus, it is not necessary that conflict actually exist for this Court to possess subject-matter jurisdiction, only that there be some statement or citation in the opinion that hypothetically could create conflict if there were another opinion reaching a contrary result. This is the only reasonable interpretation of this constitutional provision. As the final authority on the meaning of the Florida Constitution, see Art. IV, § 1(c), and Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (3), Fla. Const., this Court has the final and inherent power to determine what constitutes express and direct conflict. No other authority exists, except the people pursuant to their power to amend the constitution, that may nullify this Court's pronouncements on that question.
This, by definition, is discretion, not jurisdiction. As noted in Black's Law Dictionary 419 (5th ed. 1979), discretion is
the exercise of judicial judgment, based on facts and guided by law.... It is a legal discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law and is not to give effect to the will of the judge, but to that of the law.
Subject-matter jurisdiction, on the other hand, is defined as:
Power of a particular court to hear the type of case that is then before it.... jurisdiction over the nature of the cause of action and relief sought....
Id. at 767. While this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear any petition arising from an opinion that establishes a point of law, we have operated within the intent of the constitution's framers, as we perceive it, in refusing to exercise our discretion where the opinion below establishes no point of law contrary to a decision of this Court or another district court.
We thus conclude that we had complete subject-matter jurisdiction to hear B.J.F. and decide the case on its merits with finality. This jurisdiction must be regarded as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Florida Star v. B.J.F.
...the newspaper's case. 484 U.S. 984, 108 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed.2d 498 (1987). The State Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. 530 So.2d 286, 287 (Fla.1988). 5. The somewhat uncharted state of the law in this area thus contrasts markedly with the well-mapped area of defamatory falsehoods, w......
-
Hughes v. Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida
...decisions were issued without opinion, those Orders stand as the Orders of the highest court in the State. The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla.1988). 6. As a preliminary matter, Respondents object to Hughes and Cloyd naming the individual State Court judges as Respondents in......
-
Bunkley v. State
...direct conflict with a decision of another district court or the Florida Supreme Court on the same question of law. See Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286 (Fla.1988).9 Soon after the implementation of the district courts in 1957, this Court in its opinions began to relax the well-defined......
-
Desautel v. Sec'y
...a decision from the highest state court empowered to hear the cause." Wells, 132 So.3d at 1112 (quoting Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 n.3 (Fla. 1998)). DeSautel asserts that he would have been able to invoke the Florida Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction had the district c......
-
Florida's third species of jurisdiction.
...(2) Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768, 776 (Fla. 1927). (3) See notes 13 and 14. (4) See notes 15 through 17. (5) Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 1988). See also Cunningham v. Std. Guar. Ins. Co., 630 So. 2d 179, 181 (Fla. (6) An excellent general discussion of the current law......
-
Taking the pathway of discretionary review toward Florida's highest court.
...only possible appellate review of a PCA issued by a Florida district court will be by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286, 288 n.3 (Fla. (8) Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a) allows a party moving for rehearing, clarification, or certification to re......