# Hardee County, Florida, etc. v. FINR II, Inc., etc.

> Supreme Court of Florida · May 25, 2017 · 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 613

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9875816

## Case

- **Full name:** HARDEE COUNTY, Florida, Petitioner, v. FINR II, INC., Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** May 25, 2017
- **Citations:** 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 613; 221 So. 3d 1162; 2017 Fla. LEXIS 1157; 2017 WL 2291004
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lawson
- **Judges:** Quince, Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Lawson, Canady, Polston
- **Cited by:** 21 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/9875816

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the "plain language of the [Bert Harris] Act provides that claims under the Act may not be based on government action on another parcel," but noting that, "[b]ecause reasonable minds may disagree with this interpretation" a statutory amendment passed nearly two de…
- explaining that "[l]egislative history can be helpful in construing a statute when its plain language is unclear"
- explaining that when statutory language is clear and unambiguous, statutory construction is unnecessary
- finding the majority’s discussion of the absurdity doctrine “improper” because “[t]he text of the statute fully resolves this case”

## Opinion text

*1168 LAWSON, 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9875816. Public record. Not legal advice.