Case ID: so2d_465/html/0546-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. SHARP, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McCOY RESTAURANTS, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF ORLANDO, Florida; Greater Orlando Aviation Authority; Delta Airlines, Inc.; Eastern Airlines, Inc.; Braniff Airlines, Inc.; Pan American Airlines, Inc.; Northwest Airlines, Inc.; Ozark Airlines, Inc.; Republic Airlines, Inc.; U.S. Air, Inc.; Air Florida, Inc.; and United Airlines, Inc., Appellees.
    No. 84-98.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Feb. 21, 1985.
    Rehearing Denied March 26, 1985.
    Charles Evans Davis, of Fishback, Davis, Dominick, Bennett, Foster, Owens & Watts, Orlando, for appellant.
    C. Reed Guthridge, of Van Den Berg, Gay, Burke, Wilson & Arkin, P.A., Orlando, for appellee Greater Orlando Aviation Authority.
    Christopher A. Detzel and Eli H. Subin, of Subin, Shams, Rosenbluth & Moran, P.A., Orlando, for appellee City of Orlando.
    
      Gregory A. Presnell and Craig P. Nieden-thal, of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, Orlando, for appellee Airlines.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, JR., JJ., concur.

SHARP, J., concurs in part; dissents in part.

SHARP, Judge,

concurring in part; dissenting in part.

I agree that the trial court properly dismissed Counts I and IV of the complaint because appellant failed to sufficiently allege standing as a taxpayer to challenge the airline agreements involved in this case, and appellant failed to allege a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship in Count II.

I think appellant sufficiently pleaded grounds to challenge the agreements under the Sunshine Law in Count III. § 286.011, Fla.Stat. (1988). The Aviation Authority is a public body to which the Sunshine Law appears applicable. § 286.011(1); Wood v. Marston, 442 So.2d 934 (Fla.1983); Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So.2d 473 (Fla.1974). No special standing allegations are necessary for a citizen to bring a Sunshine Law case against a public body. See, e.g., Neu v. Miami Herald Publishing Company, 462 So.2d 821 (Fla.1985). It was, therefore, erroneous to dispose of this count upon challenge by a motion to dismiss. 
      
      . Department of Revenue v. Markham, 396 So.2d 1120 (Fla.1981); Compare Fornes v. North Broward Hospital District, 455 So.2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) with Godheim v. City of Tampa, 426 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).