Case ID: so2d_354/html/0913-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. BOYER, Acting Chief Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert R. DEMPSEY, Royall P. Terry, Jr., and Robert W. Wennerholm, Petitioners, v. STATE RETIREMENT COMMISSION and Division of Retirement, Department of Administration, Respondents.
    No. EE-165.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Jan. 26, 1978.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1978.
    Robert R. Dempsey, Miami, for petitioners.
    L. Keith Pafford, Nancy G. Limman, E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

Petition for review is DENIED. See Shields v. Division of Retirement et al., 352 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

BOYER, Acting C. J., concurring specially.

BOYER, Acting Chief Judge,

concurring specially.

I concur with the majority, but only in deference to the doctrine of stare decisis and the majority of another panel of this court. Had I been a member of the panel considering Shields v. Division of Retirement, cited above, I would have agreed with the well reasoned and articulated dissent authored by Judge Rawls. However, I was not a member of that panel and it is clear that the decision in that case is determinative here.

Further, in my view, Shields v. Division of Retirement and this decision affects a class of constitutional or state officers and passes upon a question of great public interest and should therefore be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(3) of the Constitution of the State of Florida.