# Haridopolos v. Citizens for Strong Schools, Inc.

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · November 23, 2011 · 81 So. 3d 465

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9784589

## Case

- **Full name:** Mike HARIDOPOLOS, in His Official Capacity as the Florida Senate President; Dean Cannon, in His Official Capacity as the Florida Speaker of the House of Representatives; Dr. Eric J. Smith, in His Official Capacity as Florida Commissioner of Education; And Florida State Board of Education, Petitioners, v. CITIZENS FOR STRONG SCHOOLS, INC.; Fund Education Now; Eunice Barnum; Janiyah Williams; Jacque Williams; Sheila Andrews; Rose Nogueras; And Alfredo Nogueras, Respondents
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** November 23, 2011
- **Citations:** 81 So. 3d 465; 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18738; 2011 WL 7637788
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Padovano
- **Judges:** Benton, Clark, Davis, Hawkes, Lewis, Marstiller, Padovano, Ray, Roberts, Rowe, Swanson, Thomas, Van Nortwick
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9784589

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing a constitutional challenge to the adequacy of the educational system

## Opinion text

PADOVANO, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the state that the certified question in the plurality opinion is ineffective to establish a basis for the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in the Florida Supreme Court. See, Floridians for a Level Playing Field v. Floridians Against Expanded Gambling, 967 So.2d 882 (Fla.2007). However, I join in the court’s decision to deny the state’s motion for clarification for two reasons. First, the error identified by the solicitor general — that a majority of the judges of this court did not join in the decision on the issue that was certified — is not one that can be corrected at this point merely by clarifying the opinion. Second, the inadequacy of the certification will make little difference, given the fact that the decision of this court could be reviewed in the Florida Supreme Court on another ground. The supreme court could exercise its discretionary review jurisdiction in this case on the ground that the decision of this court is a decision expressly construing a provision of the Florida *482 Constitution. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. (1968); Zingale v. Powell, 885 So.2d 277 , 279 n.1 (Fla.2004); Malicki v. Doe, 814 So.2d 347 , 351 n. 1 (Fla.2002). The en banc decision of this court consists of two separate opinions, but both of them expressly construe the state constitution, albeit for the limited purpose of resolving the jurisdictional issue presented by the petition for writ of prohibition.
I have offered this explanation and potential solution, because the problem is one that was created by the court, not by the parties or their lawyers, and because I believe that the point made in the solicitor general’s motion is deserving of a response. My remarks should not be taken as a suggestion that the Florida Supreme Court should accept this case for review. That is a decision for the supreme court.
For these reasons, I vote to deny the motion for clarification. Because I continue to believe that the plurality opinion is correct, I vote to deny the motion for rehearing without further comment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9784589. Public record. Not legal advice.