Case Name: CITY OF MELBOURNE, Petitioner, v. Joseph Albert PUMA, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-02-03
Citations: 630 So. 2d 1097
Docket Number: No. 81652
Parties: CITY OF MELBOURNE, Petitioner, v. Joseph Albert PUMA, Respondent.
Judges: BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 630
Pages: 1097–1097

Head Matter:
CITY OF MELBOURNE, Petitioner, v. Joseph Albert PUMA, Respondent.
No. 81652.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Feb. 3, 1994.
Paul R. Gougelman and Michael R. Rie-menschneider of Reinman, Harrell, Graham, Mitchell & Wattwood, P.A., Melbourne, for petitioner.
. Ralph Geilich, Melbourne, for respondent.
Sherry A. Spiers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Jonathan A. Glogau, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for Florida Dept, of Community Affairs and Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., State of Fla.
Nancy Stuparich, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Jane C. Hayman, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for Florida League of Cities, Inc.
Eden Bentley, Asst. County Atty., Melbourne, amicus curiae for Brevard County.
John J. Copelan, Jr., County Atty. for Broward County, and Barbara S. Monahan, Asst. County Atty., Fort Lauderdale, amicus curiae for Broward County.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have for review City of Melbourne v. Puma, 616 So.2d 190 (Fla. 6th DCA 1993). Jurisdiction was initially accepted based on conflict among district courts of appeal. We find that our recent decision in Board of County Commissioners v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla.1993), resolves the conflict. Accordingly, we remand this case to the court below for further consideration consistent with our opinion in Snyder.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.