Case Name: DADE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, Dade County Tax Collector, and Florida Department of Revenue, Petitioners, v. Jose LISBOA, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-07-08
Citations: 737 So. 2d 1078
Docket Number: No. 92,628
Parties: DADE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, Dade County Tax Collector, and Florida Department of Revenue, Petitioners, v. Jose LISBOA, Respondent.
Judges: HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 737
Pages: 1078–1078

Head Matter:
DADE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, Dade County Tax Collector, and Florida Department of Revenue, Petitioners, v. Jose LISBOA, Respondent.
No. 92,628.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 8, 1999.
Robert A. Ginsburg, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Melinda S. Thornton, Assistant County Attorney, Miami, Florida, on behalf of Dade County Property Appraiser & Tax Collector, and Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Joseph C. Mellichamp, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of the Florida Department of Revenue, for Petitioners.
Brion L. Blackwelder, Project Director, Nova Southeastern University, Civil Law Clinic, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Respondent.
Vincente A. Tome, Miami, Florida, for The Project To Mobilize Immigrant Students For Eduction (Promise), A Project Of The Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Inc., Amicus Curiae.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision in Lisboa v. Dade County Property Appraiser, 705 So.2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), which certified to this Court a question declared to be of great public importance. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Upon further consideration of the certified question and the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, we conclude that the legal question in this case does not present an issue of "great public importance." Rather, the question to be answered requires consideration of a narrow issue with very unique facts. Accordingly, jurisdiction was improvidently granted and we hereby dismiss this petition.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, Senior Justice, dissents with an opinion.