2d DCA Says Richard Catalano Can Blare His Car Stereo Really Loud!

Poor Clearwater attorney Richard T. Catalano.

All he wants to do is drive down an idyllic, country St. Petersburg road and blow his ear drums out by blasting his car stereo at full volume.

What could be more American than that?

Well, now the 2d DCA agrees, though it has certified a question to the Supremes:

IS THE "PLAINLY AUDIBLE" LANGUAGE IN SECTION 316.3045(1)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES, UNCONSITUTIONALLY VAGUE, OVERBROAD, ARBITRARILY ENFORCEABLE, OR IMPINGING ON FREE SPEECH RIGHTS?

Helpfully, the 2d suggests the answer is yes:

Turning our attention to the Florida statute at issue, on its face it is not content neutral. The statute excepts from its provisions "motor vehicles used for business or political purposes, which in the normal course of conducting such business use soundmaking devices." § 316.3045(3). In other words, an individual using a vehicle for business purposes could, for example, listen to political talk radio at a volume clearly audible from a quarter mile; however, an individual sitting in a personal vehicle that is parked next to the business vehicle is subject to a citation if the individual is listening to music or religious programming that is clearly audible at twenty-five feet.  Clearly, different forms of speech receive different treatment under the Florida statute.  That is, the statute in question does not "apply equally to music, political speech and advertising," which is what the Supreme Court requires in order for the statute to be deemed, "content-neutral." See City of Cincinnati, 507 U.S. at 428.

This seems like a no-brainer.

I mean, who does St. Petersburg think it is, Coral Gables?

3d DCA and 2d DCA in Conflict -- Who Shall Prevail?

Everyone loves a good conflict.  Especially a "direct conflict."

And that's just what happened when the 2d DCA got right in the grill house of the 3d, challenging the 3d's determination that you can't get fees in a wrongful death case under section 768.26 unless you file a case first.

Let's see what the Florida Supreme Court said:

Thank you, Governor Scott!  Please sir, can I have another?

Oops, that was how the Supremes groveled their way into functioning at half-staff for another couple weeks.

Boy that Scott sure is one nice fellow!

Here's how they actually ruled on the fee issue:

[W]e agree with the Second District that section 768.26 applies even in those circumstances where a wrongful death claim is settled pre-suit and disapprove the Third District’s decision in Perez to the extent that it holds that the statute does not apply where no action for wrongful death has been filed or litigated.

 Kaboom!

And here's their reasoning:

This application of the statute is consistent with the stated legislative intent that the Act be “liberally construed.” § 768.17, Fla. Stat. (2005). Additionally, this furthers the public policy favoring settlement of disputes without litigation where possible.

Who knew?

I sense heightened, nay furious activity in the gym/mechanical room as news filters down to the bunker.  Good thing those toilets are bolted down tight.

And people, please -- don't fight over the freshly donated, pre-owned Thighmaster!