CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES, APPELLANT,
v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
City of Pembroke Pines appeals summary judgment dismissing its claim that the School Board of Broward County was required to include the City's charter schools in the School Board's discretionary capital outlay budget. The court affirmed, holding that the statutory language grants the School Board discretion rather than imposing a mandatory duty to fund charter schools, and that a grand jury report could not serve as summary judgment evidence.
The court held that section 1011.71(2) grants school boards discretion rather than imposing a mandatory duty to fund charter schools' capital improvements, and therefore the School Board was not required to include the City's request. The grand jury report could not serve as summary judgment evidence because it relies on a probable cause burden of proof rather than the evidentiary standard required for summary judgment, and the City failed to preserve error by not requesting a continuance to develop discovery.
[1] A grand jury report, based on a probable cause standard, cannot be used as summary judgment evidence.
[2] A party must request a continuance of a summary judgment hearing to develop discovery evidence to preserve error.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Because a grand jury operates using a probable cause burden of proof, see Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 237 So.2d 231, 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), the grand jury report could never be used as summary judgment evidence.”
Establishes that grand jury reports cannot serve as summary judgment evidence due to the different evidentiary burden applied by grand juries.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City owns and operates five charter schools and requested capital outlay funds from the School Board as part of the School Board's 2007 budget. Ef…
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 Summary Judgment Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
City of Pembroke Pines (“City”) appeals the final summary judgment entered in favor of the School Board of Broward County (“School Board”). City raises four issues, one of which argues four sub-issues. The two inquiries central to most of the issues are whether the trial court erred in: (1) granting summary judgment after being apprised that a grand jury report found School Board to be corrupt in its capital construction processes, and (2) not granting an evidentiary hearing on the grand jury report prior to entering summary judgment.1 After considering all the issues raised, we affirm.
City owns and operates five charter schools. At the heart of City’s assertions before the trial court and on appeal is the contention that section 1011.71(2), Florida Statutes (2007), required School Board to include City’s request for capital outlay funds as part of its 2007 budget. Section 1011.71(2) is the statutory authority that gives school districts the discretion to levy taxes, up to a specified maximum rate, for capital improvements. Prior to 2006, section 1011.71(2) did not authorize school boards to use any portion of this tax revenue for charter schools.2 Effective July 1, 2006, the legislature amended section *1691011.71(2) to grant school districts the discretion to allocate some of their discretionary tax revenues to charter schools.3 City contends School Board ignored its request due to corruption.
We first note that the grand jury report did not investigate issues of corruption regarding the funding of capital outlays for charter schools. More importantly, the grand jury report was not summary judgment evidence. Because a grand jury operates using a probable cause burden of proof, see Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 237 So.2d 231, 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), the grand jury report could never be used as summary judgment evidence. Further, City failed to preserve error because it never requested a continuance of the summary judgment hearing to develop discovery of summary judgment evidence. We find no abuse of discretion when the trial court implicitly denied the request for an evidentiary hearing on the grand jury report.4
We agree with the trial court that City is seeking judicial intervention for inclusion in school board discretionary budgets after the legislature has declined to mandate inclusion, despite lobbying efforts by charter schools.
Affirmed.
POLEN, J., and KEYSER, JANIS BRUSTARES, Associate Judge, concur.