# Opposition Brief — Karsteter v. Graham Cos.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_0145%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1988
- **Citation:** 488 U.S. 981

## Text

FILED
NOV 17 1988
(3) JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR.
No. 88-473 ~
in the
Supreme Court
of the

United States of America

OCTOBER TERM, 1988

CHRIS KARSTETER,

Petitioner
US.

THE GRAHAM COMPANIES f/k/a
THE SENGRA CORPORATION, a Florida corporation,

Respondent

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT, REVIEW
DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

MALCOLM B. WISEHEART, JR.
WISEHEART & JOYCE, P.A.
2840 S.W. Third Avenue

Miami, Florida 33129

Telephone (305) 285-1222

Attorney for Respondent
THE GRAHAM COMPANIES

‘
: ate
x
‘
| : 3
f q 4 : :
ne ;
a = : ; ; ¥ :
} x ,
;
: a . | :
j é ss
« , |
; : |
‘ : |
; |
: | | | |
> | . . #
ATS | : ‘
* ion Bi 7 aie, pte a
: merge y \ me aeng” A
: | : % “ i ~
’ % ; ; 5
. . ) :
: | 4
- i * i Pe: ‘ See hes
‘ : 7 ‘
; 1 :
f hd . err ahc8 Me. sak
: 3 i 4 } ~ yo
‘ F: | wy i . : :
x > -
| : ; : ; ; ean
i i | “ K { ’ ya AD \ 3 { b ye i /
48 | “5 Se ‘ \ ; » é Y I Pood
| re \ ae ds
é i , i 4
“ Notas : ‘ . aa rat oe . |
* i | ’ Pa bane a! ; ‘ : | is

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TAMLE OF AUTHORITIES.................
STATEMENT OF THE CASE...............
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............
ps PS Per eee eee Pere Pere ere

I. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO DEMON-
STRATE ANY BASIS FOR JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CER-
TIORARI INASMUCH AS THESE PROCEED-
INGS ARE CLEARLY MOOT .............

A. THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW CONSIST-
ED OF AN ACTION TO DISPOSSESS
PETITIONER AND PETITIONER IS NO
LONGER IN POSSESSION ............

B. PETITIONER IS NOT ONLY OUT OF POS-
SESSION BUT AGREED VOLUNTARILY
TO SURRENDER POSSESSION, AND DID
SO, AFTER BEING GIVEN ADDITIONAL
EE ais ees eK

C. THE LEASE UPON WHICH PETITIONER
BASED HIS ALLEGED RIGHT OF POS-
SESSION EXPIRED ON SEPTEMBER 30,
SO Seed eae nn ea ea ee as

D. FLORIDA’S RENT DEPOSIT STATUTE
HAS BEEN CHANGED...............

E. THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS DO NOT
FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION TO THE
DOCTRINE OF MOOTNESS KNOWN AS
CASES “CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET
Pek Pe 4 9 8 ella ee rare

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Il. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
PRESENTS NO REAL OR SUBSTANTIAL
FEDERAL QUESTION .................

Ill. FLORIDA’S RENT DEPOSIT STATUTE IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID AS A RA-
TIONAL MEANS OF ACHIEVING THE
VALID OBJECTIVE OF PROTECTING
PROPERTY OWNERS FROM UNDESERV-
ED ECONOMIC LAGS 2. cb ccci vs cegessees

CARING AAIGURIEN i + 6. dma ba eee ae
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...............

il

Page

13

18
30
30

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page(s)
Abrams v. Van Schaick,

BE I TEE ook vec cca nceecaceves 13
American Surety Co. v. Baldwin,

RR 15

Allmer v. Andrews,
386 P.2d 705 (Sp.Ct.Colo. 1963)........... i)

Ash v. Dade County,
18 Fla. Supp. 2d 185

(Cir.Ct., App.Div., Dade Cty. 1986)........ 24
Barcom, Inc. v. Doll,

119 So.2d 544 (Ct.App.La., 1960).......... fe)
Bianchi v. Morales,

ee 14
Brownlee v. Sussman,

238 So.2d 317 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970)........ 18
California Water Serv. Co. v. Redding,

ee 18
Class v. Carter,

624 P.2d 626 (Ct.App.Ore. 1980).......... 9
Davis v. Rental Associates, Inc.,

456 A.2d 820 (D.C. App. 1983) ........... 23, 29
Davies Warehouses Co. v. Bowles,

ET 29
DeFunis v. Odegaard,

kk can ss wae 0 ee 7

Department of Building v. Saltzer,
16 N.Y. 2d 701, 212 N.E. 2d 154 (1965).... 29

ill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—(Continued)

Cases Page(s)
DePaul v. Kauffman,
441 Pa. 386, 272 A.2d 500 (1971) ......... 29

Dinn v. Edmonson,
428 So.2d 286 (Fla. 4 DCA 1983), pet.rev.den.
440 So.2d 351 (Pia. 1963)................ 24

Doe v. U.S. Civil Service Commission,
483 F.Supp. 539 (U.S. Dist.Ct.S.D.

me ee ere 7
Doremus v. Board of Education of Borough
of Hawthorne,

et Se I ss oo oe nk be wow 10

Emray Realty Corp. v. De Stefano,
5 Misc. 2d 352, 160 N.Y.S. 2d 433 (1957)... 29

Farrell v. Drew,

19 N.Y. 2d 486, 281 N.Y.S. 2d 1,

ie ee Perr 29
First Sav. Bank F.S.B. v. Whittley,

751 S.W.2d 60 (Ct. App. W.D. 1987)....... 29
Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray,

ge | ae ey ee 14
Herrell v. Seyforth, Shaw, Fairwheather,

491 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1 DCA 1986) ........ 24
Hester v. Sammons,

126 S.E.2d 484 (Ct.App.Ga. 1962)......... 9

Hialeah Housing Authority v. Rodriguez,
25 Fla.Supp.2d 4
Cy. Ee Ce Tt) co ieee 21

In Re: Shambow’s Estate,
15 So.3a Go7 Gin. 1963)... .....---2neeee 25

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—(Continued)
Cases Page(s)

Johnson v. Kalliorinen,

16 Fla. Supp. 2d 86 (Cty. Ct.

Pein Bem Cl. TRO) oo ick cic ces cee wes 17, 21
K.D. Lewis Enterprises Corporation v. Smith,

445 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) ..... 16, 23
Lane v. Williams,

455 US. 624 (1982) S.Ct. 1822........... 11
Lee v. Tollerson,

228 S.E.2d 595 (Ct.App.Ga. 1976) ........ 9
Leonard v. Vicksburg S. & P.R. Co.,

ee Se I x ch on aeaeee ne eens 18
Lindsey v. Normet,

Be ee CE ek os ota eedeeenoenes 6, 14, 15,

16, 27, 29

Lucky Ned Pepper’s, Ltd. v. Columbia Park
and Recreation Association,

494 A.2d 947 (Md.App. 1985) ............ 26, 27
McCowan v. Maryland,

re Sa Se EG bh 6s nok eee beaks 26
Mahdi v. Poretsky Management, Inc.,

433 A.2d 1085 (D.C.App. 1981)........... 23, 26, 29
Masser v. London Operating Co.,

34D Be. Fe ee. Te noc cece caswsinvar 18

Mihaley v. White,
15 Fla. Supp. 2d 57 (Cty. Ct.,
eee CEP. Tee 6 ae occ bsb epee e enews li, 2)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—(Continued)
Cases Page(s)

Milchman v. Rivera,
9 Misc. 2d 347, 240 N.Y.S. 2d 859,
app. dismd 13 N.Y. 2d 1123, 247
N.Y.S. 2d 122, 196 N.E. 2d 555 (1963)..... 29

Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste M.R. Co. v.
C.L. Merrick Co.,

ee St ee 18
Moore v. Ogilvie,
SOG Uk Ee CONE oc canscadtaaseeasases 11

Multach v. Snipes,
15 Fla. Supp. 2d 52 (Cty. Ct.,

Palm Beach Cty. 1986) ..............202. 25
Murphy v. Hunt,

455 U.S. 478 (1982)..................... 11
Nevins Drug Co., Inc. v. Bunch,

63 So.2d 329 (Fla. 1953)................. 18
Nickey v. Mississippi,

292 U.S. 393 (1934)... 0... cc ce wwe wees 15
North Carolina v. Rice,

OBE WE. BOG CEU so 66 0 ksne eek eceede ss 7,11
Oaks v. District Court of State of R.1.,

631 F.Supp. 538 (D.R.I. 1986) ............ 29

Officenters International Corp. v.
Interstate North Associates,
166 Ga. App. 93, 303 S.E.2d 292
(Ga. App. 1983) cert. denied 464

C5. We CUED 6c 6 eccscdcwbeaweeareceass 29
Rader v. Prather,
130 So. 15 (Fla. 1930).........0...0....... 18, 24

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—(Continued)

Cases Page(s)
Roe v. Wade,

I il eg So ae 11
Sanks v. Georgia,

ee ID Sos 56S unens @ a Va eR REO 8, 11
Sawyer v. Piper,

ee I Ss no a g-unit a De ea a bin 13
Schaeffer v. Montes,

37 Misc. 2d 722, 233 N.Y.S.2d 444 (1962) .. 29
Soileau v. Knighten,

423 So.2d 61 (La.App. ist Cir. 1982) ...... 9
Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC,

gO 8, ee ee 11
Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorble,

Se Se EE vies sek ht abe s seamen 11
Ten West 28th Street Realty Corp. v. Moerdler,

52 Misc. 2d 109, 275 N.Y.S. 2d 144 (1966). . 29

United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty,

eS vn a0 6065 osstaewdeuok x ‘ | ‘ ie | Wires * rel ‘ f : ie pal ; ‘ ‘ a " ore
, Ss } - , I bs : é : be .
‘7 ] M iis : i : °
ie ; $ : i : am Leen els oe
¢ des : es ~ % } : )
5 . me a in . he i, +7} SB ep * y -
* , Mie
3 ¥ : 1m : ait 4 ea xk . 3
$ : . , ate Is rg
2 “s ( Om My) ” i rt $ . wane 4
a ¢ * | uy {ee + B 4 £. x f _
g ‘ : ’ : Ee TT, ON 4 ; " ; ‘
3 ‘ x } : { nose ; wal, :
‘Ac 5. ‘ A. 7 53 fax 4
. . , y ¥ ; £ | \ q “ j t, /
3 a ‘ . N , eee % >. _ i
a - ‘ : 0 " ¥
a y ; . sS t %
- cr.% Sy ‘ : :
a i x Ahttcon j § eh Ws . re
| f a. ey p ens ty ie 4 ‘
7c id ; : :
ty Ce , @ . ; a, :
- A : Z t :
4 2 o Yr i f : ‘ S :
4 1 - Re v\ 2 o- u 2
Ome oh 5: r : } Faia ih ep.
t On ay : ; :
be ‘ Perey ‘i Ws) : y j ve
~ ang A ‘ / Ts : “4 :
Y ( ‘
— | a 4 ~ : ¥ “ : :
—_ a Ls .
° “ - - > ‘
am ~ o : :
‘ . oF { f ~~ is

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_0145%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.