Court Opinion

ID: 9875816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:43:00.84605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:05.450285
License: Public Domain

*1168LAWSON, J.,
specially concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority and most of the majority opinion, but concur specially because much of the majority’s analysis is unwarranted. The text of the statute fully resolves this case, leaving “no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction,” Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984) (citations omitted), and rendering section II of the majority opinion improper, id. As the plain language of the statute ends our inquiry, I would end our analysis with the conclusion in section I that: “The plain language of the Act provides that claims under the Act may not be based on government action on another parcel.” Majority op. at 1165.
CANADY, J., concurs.