# Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General

> Supreme Court of Florida · May 15, 1997 · 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 271

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7709152

## Case

- **Full name:** ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY RIGHTS AMENDMENTS PROVIDING COMPENSATION FOR RESTRICTING REAL PROPERTY USE MAY COVER MULTIPLE SUBJECTS. ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE VOTER APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR NEW TAXES. ADVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RE PROPERTY RIGHTS
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** May 15, 1997
- **Citations:** 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 271; 699 So. 2d 1304; 1997 Fla. LEXIS 674
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Grimes
- **Judges:** Anstead, Grimes, Harding, Only, Overton, Shaw, Wells
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7709152

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding proposed amendment requiring full compensation be paid to owner when government restricts use of private real estate in certain circumstances would substantially affect Legislature's power to enact legislation establishing standards and criteria for land use regulat…
- concluding proposed amendment requiring full compensation when government restricts use of private real estate in certain circumstances would substantially affect Legislature's power to enact legislation establishing standards and criteria for land use regulation, Legislature'…
- observing that an initiative which combines revenue limitation or methods of revenue raising and other subjects must comply with the single-subject requirement

## Opinion text

GRIMES, Justice,
concurring in result only.
I concur in the conclusion that each of the three initiative petitions violates the single-subject rule. However, if the initiative petitions were otherwise valid, I cannot agree that the ballot titles and summaries are misleading. The summaries are only ambiguous because the amendments which they purport to describe are ambiguous.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7709152. Public record. Not legal advice.