Case ID: so2d_741/html/0633-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PADOVANO, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Merle Albertyn KAPPELMANN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION, Appellee.
    No. 98-3629.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Sept. 28, 1999.
    David W. Rynders, Naples, for Appel-knt
    Kristi Reid Bronson, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Elections Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Reversed. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’m, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995); Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929, 934 (Fla.1998) (“We hold that section 106.143(l)(b) is inapplicable to the personal pamphleteering of “individuals acting independently and using only 'their own modest resources. ’ [McIntyre,] 514 U.S. at 351, 115 S.Ct. at 1521.” (emphasis supplied)).

DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR; PADOVANO, J., DISSENTS WITH OPINION.

PADOVANO, J.,

dissenting.

The appeal in the present case is from a final order denying a postjudgment motion under rule 1.540 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The authorities cited in the majority opinion support the appellant’s argument on the merits of the original controversy, but the appellant has not established a ground for asserting this argument in a postjudgment motion under rule 1.540. Because there is no legal reason to vacate the judgment, I would affirm the trial court’s order.