From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Dunnellon v. Aran

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Nov 17, 1995
662 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Summary

holding that legislature intended strict construction of exception in section 286.011

Summary of this case from School Bd. of Duval Cty. v. Fla. Pub

Opinion

No. 95-0007.

November 17, 1995.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Thomas D. Sawaya, J.

Craig A. Dennis and John A. Grant of Dennis Bowman, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Louis E. Hatcher of Law Offices of Michael A. Smith, Dunnellon, for Appellee.


The controlling issue in this case is whether the failure to announce the names of those persons participating in a closed attorney-client session is a violation of the Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Law. The trial court found that the mayor's failure to disclose the names of the lawyer from the City Attorney's Office and the lawyers from a specially retained out-of-town law firm violated the terms of section 286.011(8)(d), Florida Statutes which reads:

The entity shall give reasonable public notice of the time and date of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons who will be attending the session. The session shall commence at an open meeting at which the person chairing the meeting shall announce the commencement and estimated length of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons attending. . . . (emphasis added).

The City urges that when the mayor announced that the attorneys hired by the City would attend the session, his "substantial compliance" was sufficient to satisfy the statute. We disagree and affirm the trial court.

Based on the history of the Sunshine Law and the carefully drafted and detailed provisions of this exception to it, we find the legislature intended that a strict construction be applied. The clear requirements of the statute are neither onerous nor difficult to satisfy.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.


Summaries of

City of Dunnellon v. Aran

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Nov 17, 1995
662 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

holding that legislature intended strict construction of exception in section 286.011

Summary of this case from School Bd. of Duval Cty. v. Fla. Pub

In City of Dunnellon v. Aran, 662 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), the Fifth District held that the failure of the mayor to disclose the names of lawyers from the City Attorney's office and lawyers from a specially retained out-of-town law firm participating in a closed attorney-client session violated sub-section 286.01 l(8)(d). Under the holding in Dunnellon, the City was in compliance with the section 286.01 l(8)(d), since the names of Special Counsel retained by the City were announced prior to the meeting.

Summary of this case from Zorc v. City of Vero Beach
Case details for

City of Dunnellon v. Aran

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF DUNNELLON, ETC., APPELLANT, v. LUIS F. ARAN AND IAN HAY, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Nov 17, 1995

Citations

662 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

Zorc v. City of Vero Beach

In construing the statute, it is well settled that the Sunshine Law, enacted for the public benefit, should…

AGO

Other staff members or consultants may not be present at such closed sessions: City of Dunnellon v. Aran, 662…