CAMPUS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., D/B/A THE INDEPENDENT FLORIDA ALLIGATOR, APPELLANT,
v.
SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Campus Communications, Inc., a newspaper, appealed the dismissal of its complaint alleging that Shands Teaching Hospital violated Florida's Sunshine Law and Public Records Law. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that Shands is not a state agency or authority subject to these statutes.
Shands is not a state agency or authority for purposes of the Sunshine Law and is not a unit of government or private entity acting on behalf of any public agency for purposes of the Public Records Law. Therefore, the complaint failed to state a cause of action and dismissal was proper.
[1] A hospital that is not a state agency or authority is not subject to the Sunshine Law.
[2] A hospital that is not a unit of government or a private entity acting on behalf of a public agency is not subject to the Public Records Law.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Shands "is not a state agency or corporation primarily acting as an instrumentality or agency of the state" within the meaning of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, Florida's Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Statute.”
Establishes the precedent that Shands does not qualify as a state agency or instrumentality under applicable Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCampus Communications, a newspaper of general circulation in Alachua County, filed an action against Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. allegi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. Stat. § 286.011 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order dismissing with prejudice a complaint filed by appellant, a newspaper of general circulation in Alachua County. The ground for dismissal is appellant’s failure to state a cause of. action. We affirm.
The issue is whether the trial court erred in ruling that Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. (Shands) was not an agency within the meaning of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and concluding that appellant’s complaint did not state a cause of action. Appellant filed an action against Shands alleging violation of Section 286.011, Florida Statutes (the Sunshine Law), and Chapter 119, Florida Statutes (the Public Records Law).
Shands filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and after a hearing the trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The trial court relied heavily on Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Lee, 478 So. 2d 77, 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), wherein this court held that Shands “is not a state agency or corporation primarily acting as an instrumentality or agency of the state” within the meaning of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, Florida’s Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Statute.
As stated in Section 286.011(1), Florida Statutes, the Sunshine Law applies only to a “state agency or authority.” As stated in Section 119.011(2), Florida Statutes, the Public Records Law applies only to a “unit of government” or private entity “acting on behalf of any public agency.” Although Lee applies to the Sovereign Immunity Statute, the rationale in Lee is applicable in this case. Accordingly, we conclude that Shands is not a state agency or authority for purposes of the Sunshine Law and that Shands is not a unit of government or private entity acting on behalf of any public agency for purposes of the Public Records Law.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm.
SMITH, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur. WENTWORTH, J., dissents with written opinion.
WENTWORTH, Judge,
dissenting.
I would not extend the rationale of Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics Inc. v. Lee, 478 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), to the circumstances of the present case. Lee involved a determination that Shands was not “primarily acting as an instrumentality or agency of the state” under section 768.28, Florida Statutes. The present case involves a determination as to whether Shands is “acting on behalf of any public agency” as delineated in Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, or should be considered as a “state agency or authority” under section 286.011, Florida Statutes. I would not construe these provisions as identical to that involved in Lee, and would find that the allegations of appellant’s complaint were sufficient in this regard to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mem'l Hospital-West Volusia, Inc. v. News-Journal Corp., 729 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1999)…review of the trial court’s legal conclusions based upon undisputed facts. [*382] Finally, West Volusia, Inc. contends that we should find that the First District’s decision in Campus Communications, Inc. v. Shands Teaching Hospital & Clinics, Inc., 512 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), applies to this case. West Volusia, Inc. argues that if Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., is not bound by the Public Records Act, then West Volusia, Inc. should not be bound by the Public Records'Act. We do not agree.…
Authorities Cited
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics v. Norissa M. LEE, 478 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)