Court Opinion

ID: 7488529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 04:06:24.422564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:23:05.581015
License: Public Domain

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.