TALBOT, LLC

v.

CITY OF TAMPA, 1704 17TH STREET VENTURE, LLC

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TALBOT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellant

V.

CITY OF TAMPA, a Florida municipal corporation; and 1704 17TH STREET VENTURE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellees.

No. 2D2025-1729

September 25, 2026

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Christine A. Marlewski, Judge.

Luke Lirot of Luke Charles Lirot, P.A., Clearwater; and Candice Colucci of Colucci Law Group, PLLC, Clearwater, for Appellant.

Scott Steady, City Attorney, and Mourama S. Saint-Fleur, Assistant City Attorney, Tampa, for Appellee City of Tampa, a Florida municipal corporation.

Shane T. Costello and A. Evan Dix of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee 1704 17th Street Venture, LLC, a Florida limited liability company.

GUARD, Judge.

Talbot, LLC (Talbot) appeals the dismissal of its amended complaint arising out of the City of Tampa's (City) grant of a variance. As to the City, we affirm, concluding that binding precedent from the Florida

Supreme Court bars Talbot's injunctive and declaratory relief claims to enforce the City's ordinances. As to Talbot's remaining claims, we affirm, holding that partially obstructing Talbot's rooftop view, with no other effect on Talbot's property, is not sufficient injury to confer standing.

I.

Talbot owns a historic building known as the Stein building in Ybor City. Talbot leases that building to a tenant that operates Prana, a night club with a rooftop bar. Talbot alleges that Prana has "long capitalized" on "unobstructed views to the City's skyline." 17th Street Venture, LLC (Venture) owns adjacent property to the Stein Building on which it built a mixed-use building known as the Miles Ybor building. Both buildings are in the YC-1 Ybor City historic zoning district.

In the YC-1 district, construction is limited to a maximum height of forty-five feet. See TAMPA, FLA., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 27-177 TABLE 8-2 (2026). In its Code of Ordinances, the City defines how to calculate that height and excludes from that calculation certain building features like "parapet walls." Id. §§ 27-43, 27-158(a). The Barrio Latino Commission (BLC) serves "as the architectural review board for the Ybor City Historic District." Id. § 27-94(a). Thus, the BLC has the authority to "[h]ear and authorize variances" for the "height of structures" within that zoning district. Id. § 27-96(a)(1), (a)(3)(ii). Before granting a variance, the BLC must conduct a public hearing, consider various criteria, and "base its decision on substantial competent evidence in the official record." Id. § 27-96(c), (d). A person aggrieved by the decision can seek further review with the City Council. Id. §§ 27-96(h), 27-61(b)(2). The City Council's decision is "final" and "may be appealed to a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner set forth by applicable law." Id. § 27-61(j)(2)d.

In 2020, the predecessor-in-title to Venture applied to the BLC for a variance to allow construction of the Miles Ybor building to a height of fifty-four feet. The variance application referred to the comparable height of adjacent properties, noting an adjacent parking garage as being "approximately 60" feet in height and the Stein building as being "approximately 54" feet in height. According to the amended complaint, Talbot was "[c]oncerned" that the building "would eliminate" its "unobstructed views" of the City's skyline, but the predecessor owner of the Miles Ybor building "assured" Talbot that the building "would not exceed the height" of the Stein building. The BLC held a public hearing on the variance application. Talbot alleged that the predecessor owner "promised . . . that the structure would not be taller than" the Stein Building and that, consequently, Talbot did not oppose it, despite Talbot now alleging that the Stein building is only forty-eight feet, not fifty-four feet. The BLC approved the variance application, "permitting a height increase" from forty-five to fifty-four feet. Talbot alleged that the BLC approved the variance "subject to" the predecessor constructing the building in accordance with "details" shown on a "site plan" that was presented at the hearing. Talbot alleged that, based on the assurances it received, it "had no reason to appeal the variance, [with] actual construction being far into the future."

Once the BLC approved the variance, Venture went through the remainder of the permitting process. Because of Miles Ybor building's location, the BLC also had to grant Venture a "Certificate of Appropriateness," which required review of not only the building's height but also its design. See generally TAMPA, FLA., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 27- 98. Once it received a building permit, the City subjected Venture, like all who receive a building permit, to various inspections. At the time of the amended complaint, the Miles Ybor building was substantially completed.

In addition to those inspections, before the City issues a certificate of occupancy, the BLC administrator must inspect and approve that the constructed building conforms with the certificate of appropriateness. See id. §§ 27-100(b), 27-101. As of the amended complaint, the BLC administrator had neither inspected nor approved the Miles Ybor building as constructed. As a result, the City had not issued a certificate of occupancy for the Miles Ybor building.

In its original complaint, Talbot alleged that Venture violated the variance when constructing the Miles Ybor building. After engaging with a City employee by email, which is in the record, Talbot learned that the Miles Ybor building's parapet wall was not included in the definition of the building's "height." See id. § 27-158(a). Thereafter, Talbot amended its complaint. Instead, Talbot alleged that, contrary to the "assurances" of the predecessor owner, the Miles Ybor building's "parapet wall exceeds the current height of [the Stein Building]'s parapet wall by eight feet." Talbot alleged that it and its tenant have been harmed because they no longer have the same "majestic, sweeping, unobstructed views to the City of Tampa skyline." As clarified at oral argument, Talbot's claim boils down to a rendering provided by the predecessor owner in its site plan that made it appear that the buildings' heights would be equal and, as built, the heights are not equal, thus, part of Talbot's view is now partially blocked. That rendering is part of the amended complaint.

Each of Talbot's claims sought to unwind the BLC's height variance approval from 2020 and prevent all further development and approvals for the Miles Ybor building until the BLC issued a new variance. As Talbot described in the trial court, the relief it sought was to "go back to the beginning" for the BLC to consider the variance anew. In Count I, Talbot asserted a Boucher¹ cause of action for an alleged zoning violation, claiming that the Miles Ybor building "exceeded the scope of the variance" granted by the BLC and requesting injunctive relief requiring 17th Street Venture to "cease development activity until the [BLC] issues a new variance." In counts II and III, Talbot sought declaratory relief for alleged ultra vires acts against the City. In count IV, Talbot asserted an "Equitable Estoppel" claim.

Venture and the City both moved to dismiss. Talbot did not seek leave to amend at, before, or after the hearing on the motion to dismiss. The trial court dismissed Talbot's action with prejudice, concluding, among other reasons, that Talbot lacked standing. Talbot timely appealed.

II.

We review an order dismissing a complaint with prejudice de novo, including an order dismissing a complaint based on the plaintiff's lack of standing. Ellerson v. Moriarty, 331 So. 3d 767, 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). Initially, we affirm dismissal of the counts against the City seeking injunctive or declaratory relief requiring it to enforce its zoning ordinances.2 See City of West Palm Beach, Inc. v. Haver, 330 So. 3d 860,

865-66 (Fla. 2021). In Haver, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that a Boucher claim does not exist unless a plaintiff alleges a violation by a governing body of its own zoning ordinances. Id. at 866. Talbot failed to allege any such violation in its amended complaint. Thus, we affirm.

Moving to what remains of the amended complaint and to Talbot's standing, the parties spent considerable time arguing about the injury allegedly suffered by Talbot. No party spent time discussing the standard that applied to Talbot to prove standing. Though both cite cases applying Florida's standing requirements in zoning cases as well as the federal standing standard, those standards seem to be at odds with each other and neither party offers an explanation or argument on what standard we should apply.

A.

In Renard v. Dade County, the Florida Supreme Court outlined the various possible standing standards that could apply arising out of zoning related dispute. 261 So. 2d 832, 837-38 (Fla. 1972). Under Renard, if the claim challenged the zoning action or inaction of a governmental body—in other words, if it was a Boucher claim—then the aggrieved party must suffer "special damages" to have standing. Id. at 837. The court defined special damages as "a definite interest exceeding the general interest in community good share[d] in common with all citizens."³ Id. If, instead, the claim attacked a validly enacted zoning

ordinance as being arbitrary and unreasonable exercises of legislative power, then the party need only show that it had a "legally recognizable interest" that was "adversely affected" by the action to have standing. Id. at 838. Finally, if the action was to attack an ordinance as being void, then "[a]ny affected resident, citizen or property owner of the governmental unit" has standing. Id.

B.

Normally, we would review Talbot's remaining claims and analyze which category under Renard each fit and resolve those claims from there. But two recent cases of the Fourth District cause us to pause: (1) Everett Bros. Recycling, Inc. v. Martin County, 401 So. 3d 372, 375-78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), and (2) Citizens for Responsible Dev., Inc. v. City of Dania Beach, 358 So. 3d 1, 5-8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

In Everett Brothers and Citizens, the Fourth District grafted the special damages requirement for a Boucher claim from Renard onto the federal standing standard and analyzed whether the plaintiff had standing. Everett Bros. Recycling, 401 So. 3d at 375-78; Citizens for Responsible Dev., 358 So. 3d at 5-8. In doing so, Everett Brothers relied on Citizens to support the use of the federal standard. 401 So. 3d at 375. In turn, Citizens cited a footnote from the Florida Supreme Court's decision in State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101, 1113 n.4 (Fla. 2004), as its basis for adopting the federal standard into the standing framework for a zoning challenge. 358 So. 3d at 5.

1978) (stating that the special damage rule still has vitality in actions seeking to enforce a valid zoning ordinance, albeit with a more liberal application). The Florida Supreme Court has not further clarified what "a more lenient application" exactly entails.

It is not just zoning disputes where the federal standard has been adopted by other District Courts of Appeal, as there are decisions in the First, Third, and Fourth Districts relying directly or indirectly on J.P. in support of using that federal standard in a wide variety of cases. See Frank v. Conlan, 434 So. 3d 452, 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), reh'g denied (May 27, 2026) (applying federal standard to a will contest); Pet Supermarket, Inc. v. Eldridge, 360 So. 3d 1201, 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (concluding that the federal standard applied to a violation of a federal statute in state court); Saleh v. Miami Gardens Square One, Inc., 353 So. 3d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (applying similarly); Southam v. Red Wing Shoe Co., 343 So. 3d 106, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (utilizing the federal standard); Cmty. Power Network Corp. v. JEA, 327 So. 3d 412, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (applying federal standard in net metering dispute); DeSantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass'n, 306 So. 3d 1202, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (concluding no standing under federal standard related to COVID school re-opening order); Giuffre v. Edwards, 226 So. 3d 1034, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (applying the federal standard in a defamation suit).

C.

We have not squarely addressed this issue.⁴ J.P. involved a challenge to juvenile curfew ordinances on constitutional grounds. 907 So. 2d at 1104-05. There, the Florida Supreme Court held that the ordinances violated the juveniles' rights to privacy and freedom of movement. Id. at 1113-16. As the court concluded, the ordinances were

unconstitutional because the localities' proffered governmental interests, while compelling, were not narrowly tailored. Id. at 1116-19. Standing was not a major issue in J.P. Its sole mention was in connection with an argument that the ordinances violated "parents' rights to raise their children." Id. at 1113. In response to that argument, the supreme court wrote "[b]ecause the Second District never determined whether these juveniles have standing to assert the constitutional rights of their parents, we decline to rule on these claims." Id. On the comma of the above quoted passage, the court dropped a footnote which stated:

There are three requirements that constitute the "irreducible constitutional minimum" for standing. Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 771, 120 S. Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000). First, a plaintiff must demonstrate an "injury in fact," which is "concrete," "distinct and palpable," and "actual or imminent." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990). Second, a plaintiff must establish "a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992). Third, a plaintiff must show "a 'substantial likelihood' that the requested relief will remedy the alleged injury in fact." Stevens, 529 U.S. at 771, 120 S. Ct. 1858.

907 So. 2d at 1113 n.4.

In the body of the opinion, after the above sentence, the supreme court cited our decision in State v. T.M., 761 So. 2d 1140, 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). 907 So. 2d at 1113. In T.M., we relied on an earlier Florida Supreme Court case, State v. Hagan, 387 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1980), not federal standing case law, in deciding a standing issue. 761 So. 2d at 1145.

Based on just a cursory review of J.P., we have serious doubts whether the Florida Supreme Court in J.P. adopted the federal standard for Florida state courts. But we recognize that the First, Third, and Fourth Districts reached the opposite conclusion. Before reaching a conclusion on what standard should apply, we first examine both federal and state standing law and their origins to see if the standards are reconcilable. We will also look at four Florida Supreme Court cases decided after J.P. and determine whether the court itself has said anything that helps us resolve this question.

1.

a.

First, we review modern federal standing doctrine, so that we can compare it to Florida standing doctrine before J.P. Unlike state courts, as discussed below, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction— "[l]imited first by the Constitution, to only the kinds of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' listed in Article III. And for all lower federal courts, limited as well by statute." Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S.²², 26 (2025). Federal district courts have limited jurisdiction to hear only federal criminal violations and a limited number and type of civil actions. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2026) (establishing original jurisdiction in federal district courts for all offenses against the United States); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2026) (detailing civil federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2026) (creating federal jurisdiction where there is diversity of citizenship and $75,000 or more in controversy). In federal courts, standing is jurisdictional, meaning failing to plead or later prove the "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" leads a federal court to dismiss an action just like a district court would dismiss an action for lacking diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Steel Co.

v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 102-03, 110 (1998) (quoting Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559–560 (1992)).

Federal standing doctrine emanates from the United States Constitution. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 422-23 (2021). In Ramirez, the United States Supreme Court emphasized that its standing doctrine exists because the text of the Constitution vests "judicial Power" in federal courts and "confines" that power "to the resolution of 'Cases' and 'Controversies.'" Id. at 423. Article III, Section 2, clause¹ of the Constitution reads in full:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;— between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Art. III, § 2, cl.¹, U.S. Const.

Almost sixty years ago, the Court discussed the "Cases" and "Controversies" requirements of Article III, Section 2, as accomplishing two purposes: protecting separation of powers and ensuring only real disputes are resolved. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1968). In Flast, the Court stated:

As is so often the situation in constitutional adjudication, those two words have an iceberg quality, containing beneath their surface simplicity submerged complexities which go to the very heart of our constitutional form of government. Embodied in the words 'cases' and 'controversies' are two complementary but somewhat different limitations. In part those words limit the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process. And in part those words define the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure that the federal courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government.

Id.

Almost two decades after Flast and over forty years ago, the Court further commented that standing is "an aspect of justiciability." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). It stands beside other doctrines— mootness, ripeness, and political question-to limit the power "of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary." Id. (quoting Vander Jagt v. O'Neill, 699 F. 2d 1166, 1178-79 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Bork, J., concurring)). It "is built on a single basic idea—the idea of separation of powers." Allen, 468 U.S. at 752; see also Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Am. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) (stating that standing in federal courts "limit[s] the federal judicial power 'to those disputes which confine federal courts to a role consistent with a system of separated powers and which are traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process' " (quoting Flast, 392 U.S. at 97))). It works to "prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches." Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013); see also Lujan, 504 U.S. at 559-560 (expressing that "the Constitution's central mechanism of separation of powers depends largely upon common understanding of what activities are appropriate to legislatures, to executives, and to courts" and that standing is part of that mechanism of defining the activities of courts).

The majority in Ramirez summarized what the constitutional requirements of standing were designed to prevent:

Under Article III, federal courts do not adjudicate hypothetical or abstract disputes. Federal courts do not possess a roving commission to publicly opine on every legal question. Federal courts do not exercise general legal oversight of the Legislative and Executive Branches, or of private entities. And federal courts do not issue advisory opinions.

594 U.S. at 423-24.

Four decades ago, the Court stated that "the term 'standing' [in federal court] subsume[d] a blend of constitutional requirements and prudential considerations." Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471. These prudential considerations meant that, even if a plaintiff meets the constitutional requirements detailed below, a federal court could decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it would be unwise or imprudent to do so. See Allen, 468 U.S. at 751. More recently, the Court has described "prudential considerations" as "part of judicial self-government." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. Though, the Court over time has converted some previous "prudential considerations" to become part of the constitutional requirements or done away with other prudential considerations. See, e.g., Lexmark Int'l., Inc. v. Static Control Components, 572 U.S. 118, 125- 27, 127 n.3 (2014) (stating that "a federal court's 'obligation to hear and decide' cases within its jurisdiction is virtually unflagging").

The history of federal standing doctrine is highly debated. Compare Ann Woolhandler & Caleb Nelson, Does History Defeat Standing Doctrine?, 102 MICH. L. REV. 689, 691-92 (2004) (arguing that history does not defeat the modern federal standing doctrine) with John A.

Ferejohn & Larry D. Kramer, Independent Judges, Dependent Judiciary: Institutionalizing Judicial Restraint, 77 N.Y. U. L. REV. 962, 1009 (2002) (claiming that the federal standing doctrine was "fabricat[ed]" by the modern Supreme Court). In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, Justice Thomas traced the origins of "modern standing doctrine" to how common-law courts historically treated private versus public claims of injury. 578 U.S. 330, 344-47 (2016) (Thomas, J., concurring). According to Justice Thomas, as courts expanded who could sue for a violation of a public right, those courts required plaintiffs to allege and prove "special damage" which was defined as "some extraordinary damage, beyond the rest of the [community]." Id. at 344-45 (alteration in original) (quoting³ WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *220). Justice Thomas focused on the common-law claim of public nuisance in his analysis. Id. at 345. "These differences between legal claims brought by private plaintiffs for the violation of public and private rights underlie modern standing doctrine and explain the Court's description of the injury-in-fact requirement." Id. at 346. Under his view, the injury-in-fact requirement served the same purpose as the old special damage requirement. Id. Those limitations prevent a court from violating separation of powers principles by limiting the claims that could be litigated to only those where a private plaintiff is injured in a " 'concrete' injury particular to himself." Id.

b.

Before turning to the federal standing constitutional requirements or retuning to J.P., it is next necessary to compare Florida courts and their jurisdiction to federal courts and analyze how any differences impact standing. The primary difference between federal courts and Florida courts is that Florida courts are courts of general or "plenary" jurisdiction. Dep't of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla. 1994). In other words, Florida courts "have authority over any matter not expressly denied them by the constitution or applicable statutes." Id. There is no list, like that contained in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, limiting the types of matters or parties that may come before Florida state courts. See, e.g., Art. V, § 5(b), Fla. Const. (1972) (stating that "[t]he circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction not vested in the county courts"); Art. V, § 6(b) (providing that the jurisdiction of the county courts shall be "prescribed by general law"). Florida courts do not deal with just criminal and civil matters, like federal district courts. Florida courts can hear nearly any matter relating to a person's birth, or before, through their estate after their death. See, e.g., § 26.012, Fla. Stat. (2026) (containing the jurisdiction of circuit courts); § 34.01, Fla. Stat. (2026) (detailing the jurisdiction of county courts); see also Torres v. Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Bd., 961 So. 2d 340, 345-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (concluding that a duty existed for a doctor to a plaintiff for preconception negligence and allowing recovery for medical malpractice before conception); Grant v. Kunke, 397 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (barring daughter's claim against her mother's estate for failure to adhere to statutory deadline).

The federal standing test, which was designed for courts with a limited, narrow jurisdiction, may not be workable for courts with a broader, general jurisdiction. While federal courts can deny standing and the parties may still have a forum to litigate their disputes,⁵ if

Florida limited standing too narrowly, litigants could be deprived access to any court. At the very least, one would expect that the Florida Supreme Court would consider the workability of a rule created for a limited, narrow jurisdiction in a general jurisdiction environment if adopting it, which it did not in J.P.

Second, the fears of "an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary"⁶ serving for life, which are at the heart of federal standing doctrine, are not present, or not as present, with Florida's judiciary. Florida's judiciary is ultimately accountable to the people. Florida circuit and county judges are directly elected by electors in their jurisdictions. Art. V, § 10(b), Fla. Const. (1998). The people of Florida vote on whether to retain Florida Supreme Court justices and District Court of Appeal judges. Art. V, § 10(a), Fla. Const. (1998). Likewise, unlike federal justices or judges, no Florida state justice or judge serves for life as the Florida Constitution makes them ineligible to serve after they turn seventy-five years old. Art. V, § 8, Fla. Const. (2018). Taken collectively, the democratic concerns underlying much of the federal standard are missing from Florida courts, which again the court in J.P. did not discuss.

Third, standing in Florida courts is treated procedurally different. The Florida Supreme Court has held that standing is waivable unlike in federal court. Krivanek v. Take Back Tampa Pol. Comm., 625 So. 2d 840, 842 (Fla. 1993); Cowart v. City of W. Palm Beach, 255 So. 2d 673, 674-75 (Fla. 1971). Because standing is waivable, the Florida Supreme Court also concluded that standing is not jurisdictional. Page v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams., 308 So. 3d 953, 960-61 (Fla. 2020). In other words,

in Florida state courts, if a party lacks standing, it does not cause the court to lack subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Instead, a party's case eventually fails only if a party raises standing as an affirmative defense and the plaintiff cannot prove standing. See, e.g., Corrigan v. Bank of Am., N.A., 189 So. 3d 187, 189-90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (en banc). To the extent that J.P. adopted the federal standard and set it as the "irreducible constitutional minimum,"⁷ it did not clarify how to square the jurisdictional aspect of federal standing with how standing in Florida courts has been historically waivable and non-jurisdictional. Again, at the very least, if J.P. was meant to change Florida standing law, we would have expected that the Florida Supreme Court would have examined this issue, which it did not.

Fourth, there are textual differences between the federal and Florida constitutions despite similar underlying concerns. Initially, apart from J.P., which cited federal constitutional decisions,8 there are few clear statements from the Florida Supreme Court on where Florida standing doctrine emanates. There is little discussion of a textual, constitutional basis for Florida's standing doctrine in Florida Supreme Court precedent. The best statement that we could find that sounded like a constitutional basis for Florida's standing doctrine was in State ex rel. Crim v. Juvenal, 159 So. 663, 664 (Fla. 1935). In Juvenal, the Florida Supreme Court anchored its standing jurisprudence in both the idea of "judicial power" and in separation of powers concerns. The court stated:

It is not the province of the judiciary to act as a general conservator of the Constitution as a restraint upon the powers or abuses of other

branches of the government, even in cases where the Constitution appears to have been flagrantly violated. This is true because the judicial power extends only to an enforcement of the Constitution when its protection is properly invoked in a judicial manner before a competent tribunal by one entitled to claim the benefit of the Constitution's provisions as against some threatened wrong about to be done in disregard of organic inhibition or mandate.

Id.; see also Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d at 720-21 (discussing standing as avoiding advisory opinions, which would seem to implicate Florida's separation of powers clause in Art. II, § 3, Fla. Const., though the court did not cite to or analyze that provision). While the above language is consistent with language found in Supreme Court of the United States precedent cited above, it is striking that there is little discussion or textual analysis in Florida Supreme Court jurisprudence relating to standing since Juvenal almost a century ago.

While we could find no supreme court opinion that explicitly cited to text of the Florida Constitution, to the extent that the Florida standing doctrine emanates from the Florida Constitution, it would make sense it would emanate from Article V, section¹ of the Florida Constitution.⁹ Art. V, § 1, Fla. Const. That section reads "[t]he judicial power shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts of appeal, circuit courts and

county courts."¹⁰ Id. There is no "Case" or "Controversy" language in Florida's current or past constitutions. But, despite that textual difference, the Florida Supreme Court construed the language of Article V, section¹ to limit "judicial power" to justiciable controversies. See Casiano v. State, 310 So. 3d 910, 913 (Fla. 2021); Burnett v. Greene, 122 So. 570, 575 (Fla. 1929) (involving identical language under the 1885 Florida Constitution). In Burnett, the court stated:

The judicial power of the state extends to all controversies justiciable in their nature and to the parties to which or the property involved in which may be reached by judicial process. All the judicial power which the state is capable of exercising is vested by the Constitution in the courts enumerated in it.

Id.; see also Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d at 720-21 (explaining that an exception to the requirement that a case must involve a real controversy is where the Florida Constitution authorizes advisory opinions); Sarasota-Fruitville Drainage Dist. v. Certain Lands Within Said Dist. Upon Which Drainage Taxes for the Year 1952 Have Not Been Paid, 80 So. 2d 335, 336 (Fla. 1955) (dismissing appeal and commenting that appellate review is available only for "actual controversies" and not the rendition of "advisory opinions").

Had the Florida Supreme Court not limited "judicial power" to justiciable controversies as it did, Florida's explicit separation of powers provision would have likely mandated a similar result. Art. II, § 3, Fla. Const. (1968).11 That section provides:

The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.

Id.

The Florida Supreme Court applies "a strict separation of powers doctrine" for Article II, section 3. Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So. 2d 321, 329 (Fla. 2004) (quoting State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345, 353 (Fla. 2000)). Under that doctrine, "no branch may encroach upon the powers of another." Id. Its non-encroachment history traces its beginnings back to a decision in 1863, where the court stated:

The framers of the Constitution of Florida, doubtless, had in mind the omnipotent power often exercised by the British Parliament, the exercise of judicial power by the Legislature in those States where there are no written Constitutions restraining them, when they wisely prohibited the exercise of such powers in our State.

That Convention was composed of men of the best legal minds in the country—men of experience and skilled in the law—who had witnessed the breaking down by unrestrained legislation all the security of property derived from contract, the divesting of vested rights by doing away the force of the law as decided, the overturning of solemn

decisions of the Courts of the last resort, by, under the pretence of remedial acts, enacting for one or the other party litigants such provisions as would dictate to the judiciary their decision, and leaving everything which should be expounded by the judiciary to the variable and ever-changing mind of the popular branch of the Government.

Id. at 329-30 (quoting Trs. Internal Improvement Fund v. Bailey,¹⁰ Fla. 238, 250 (1863)).

Finally, Florida's access to courts constitutional provision could also implicate standing. Art. I, § 21, Fla. Const. (1968).12 It provides that "[t]he courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay." Art. I, § 21. There is no explicit federal constitutional counterpart to Florida's access to courts provision.13 The access to courts provision in the Florida Constitution gives "vitality" to the maxim "[f]or every wrong there is a remedy." Holland ex rel. Williams v. Mayes, 19 So. 2d 709, 711 (Fla. 1944). The Supreme Court defined "injury" under an earlier version of the access to courts provision as:

The word "injury," however, does imply the doing of some act which constitutes an invasion of a

legal right. The law cannot possibly remedy all the evils which affect mankind. But . . . for any act of another which constitutes an injurious invasion of any right of the individual which is recognized by or founded upon any applicable principle of law, statutory or common, the courts shall be open to him and he "shall have remedy, by due course of law."

Cason v. Baskin,²⁰ So. 2d 243, 250-51 (Fla. 1944); see also Slatcoff v. Dezen, 76 So. 2d 792, 794 (Fla. 1954) ("We have held that the word 'injury' as used in this section implies the doing of some act which constitutes an invasion of legal rights under statute or common law."). Most cases under this provision arise when the legislature abolishes common law remedies. See Kluger v. White, 281 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1973) (creating the test for when the access to courts provision is violated by the legislature abrogating a common-law remedy). While not directly dealing with standing, Article I, section²¹ implicates standing because it mandates access to courts for redress of "any injury." While "any injury" seems broader than the injury contained in the federal standing doctrine, as discussed above, it is more limited, as construed by the Florida Supreme Court, to those injuries that were redressable at common law or under statute as of 1968. Weaver v. Myers, 229 So. 3d 1118, 1140 (Fla. 2017) (holding under the access to courts provision that 1968 was the year to judge whether the legislature authorized action and it became part of the common law).

Collectively, the text of Florida's constitutional provisions relating to standing are different from Article III, section 2 of the Constitution. Those textual differences might require a different formulation of standing in state courts largely because of the access to courts provision. Moving beyond textual differences, as discussed above, there are important structural differences in the jurisdiction and the courts themselves that also could necessitate a different formulation of standing in state courts. But the considerations supporting having a standing standard appear to be the same: separation of powers concerns. We need not resolve today whether the textual or structural differences between the federal and Florida constitutions require a different formulation. We simply note that the Florida Supreme Court in J.P. neither considered the text of the Florida Constitution nor any of these structural differences when it mentioned the " 'irreducible constitutional minimum' for standing." 907 So. 2d at 1113 n.4. The presence of these unresolved and unconsidered differences cautions against J.P. marking a sweeping change to Florida standing law.

2.

a.

Turning to the federal constitutional requirements of standing itself, standing in federal court has three constitutional requirements that a plaintiff must plead and prove (1) the plaintiff suffered an injury in fact, (2) that injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and (3) that injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Robins, 578 U.S. at 338.

To meet the first requirement, the plaintiff's injury must be (a) "concrete," (b) "particularized," and (c) "actual or imminent." Ramirez, 594 U.S. at 423. A "concrete" injury is "real, and not abstract." Robins, 578 U.S. at 340. The Supreme Court of the United States has suggested that "history and tradition offer a meaningful guide" in determining whether an injury is concrete. Ramirez, 594 U.S. at 424 (quoting Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 274 (2008)). Those injuries bearing a "close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts" are concrete. Id.

(quoting Robins, 578 U.S. at 341). An injury is " 'particularized' " if it " 'affect[s] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way." ' Robins, 578 U.S. at 339 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 n.1). In other words, it must be the plaintiff who suffers harm, not someone else. Id. at 339, 339 n.7. Finally, the harm must be "actual or imminent." Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. An "imminent" injury is "not 'conjectural[,]' 'hypothetical[,]' or "speculative." Id. at 560, 564 n.2 (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990)).

To meet the second requirement, the plaintiff's injury must be "fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant." Id. at 560 (citation modified). The basic question is whether "the line of causation between the illegal conduct and injury [is] too attenuated" or "speculative." Allen, 468 U.S. at 752. If so, the injury is not fairly traceable to the defendant's actions. See id. at 756-57 (concluding that the claimed injury, a "diminished ability to receive an education in a racially integrated school," was "not fairly traceable to the Government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful.").

To meet the third requirement courts "consider the relationship between 'the judicial relief requested' and the 'injury' suffered." California v. Texas, 593 U.S. 659, 671 (2021) (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 753 n.19). ΤTo satisfy redressability, "it must be 'likely,' " not" 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.' " Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (quoting Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 43 (1976)).

b.

It is more than material, structural differences ignored in the single footnote in J.P. or in the First, Third, or Fourth District opinions adopting the federal standard. None of those opinions deal with the more than a century of Florida standing precedent. In that precedent, the Florida Supreme Court commented repeatedly that standing is not as "rigidly followed" in Florida state courts as federal standing doctrine is in federal courts. Coal. for Adequacy & Fairness in Sch. Funding, Inc. v. Chiles, 680 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1996); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 895 (Fla. 2003) (quoting Kuhnlein's "rigid sense" observation on standing and concluding that an insured's failure to have paid or be sued by a medical provider did not cause an insured to lack standing); Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d at 720 (stating that "the doctrine of standing certainly exists in Florida, but not in the rigid sense employed in the federal system"). At times, the Florida Supreme Court has rejected pushes to federalize Florida's standing standard. See, e.g., Kuhnlein, 646 So. 2d at 720 (stating that the Florida Supreme Court was "not persuaded by the federal standing cases cited by the State"). J.P. does not acknowledge those objections or rejections or provide any reason for Florida's standing standard changing. 907 So. 2d at 1113 n.4.

Reaching Florida's standing requirement, in Kuhnlein, the Florida Supreme Court stated that it "recognizes a general standing requirement in the sense that every case must involve a real controversy as to the issue or issues presented." 646 So. 2d at 720. The court was not clear on the source of this "general standing requirement" or whether it is constitutional or prudential.¹⁴ In that case, the court concluded that standing existed because the "case does involve an actual controversy that is directly affecting, or can directly affect, the lives of many Florida

residents." Id. at 721. The court's analysis seems to be materially different and require far less than what the Supreme Court of the United States demands to establish standing.

And Kuhnlein does not stand alone. It is not some outlier of Florida jurisprudence. The Florida Supreme Court used slightly different formulations of the Kuhnlein general standing requirement over a considerable period to describe its test for whether standing exists. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 78 So. 3d 1305, 1314 (Fla. 2012) (holding a litigant has standing if "he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly"); Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006) (stating standing "requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly"); Rogers & Ford Const. Corp. v. Carlandia Corp., 626 So. 2d 1350, 1352 (Fla. 1993) (stating that "[g]enerally, one with a legally protectible right or interest at stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy is a proper party to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy"); Brown v. Firestone, 382 So. 2d 654, 662 (Fla. 1980) (commenting "this Court has long been committed to the rule that a party does not possess standing to sue unless he or she can demonstrate a direct and articulable stake in the outcome of a controversy").¹⁵

There is a test that has been routinely applied by the Florida Supreme Court, which J.P. disregarded without citing any Florida case. And that application goes back well past Kuhnlein, for more than one hundred years.¹⁶ If J.P. was going to change that long-standing, well-

cognizable interest which would be affected by the outcome of the litigation") (quoting Nedeau v. Gallagher, 851 So. 2d 214, 215–16 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)) (alteration in original); Jamlynn Invs. Corp. v. San Marco Residences of Marco Condo. Assn., Inc., 544 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (commenting that "standing has been defined in a broad sense as having a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy"); Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Com. Std. Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 1066, 1067-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (stating that "[g]enerally speaking, an entity has standing to sue when it has such a legitimate interest in a matter as to warrant asking a court to entertain it").

c.

But it is not just the general standing requirement that J.P. would have altered. The Florida Supreme Court created multiple exceptions to the general standing requirement. Some of those exceptions would seemingly be at odds with federal standing law. So if the Florida Supreme Court was adopting the federal standing doctrine in J.P., some mention of those exceptions should have likely occurred. It did not.

(1)

The Florida Supreme Court created two exceptions to its general standing requirement that either increase what a plaintiff must prove or prohibit certain plaintiffs from filing certain types of actions. The first standing exception that the Florida Supreme Court created had its origin in the increased showing required for standing to bring a public nuisance claim.¹⁷ Chautauqua Ass'n, 52 So. 802, 804 (Fla. 1910).18 In Brown, the Florida Supreme Court required a plaintiff to being itself discriminated against, if there is a discrimination, it cannot be heard to raise the question on behalf of some other person who may at some future time be affected").¹⁷ The same year that Florida's original constitution was drafted, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted the special damage rule in a public nuisance case, the blocking of a navigable water. Mayor of Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 37 U.S. 91, 99 (1838). Τo the same extent, the Supreme Court of Florida used any other date to fix the meaning of the relevant textual terms. 18 See also Jacksonville, Tатра, & Key W. Ry. v. Thompson,¹⁶ So. 282, 283 (Fla. 1894) (stating that for a nuisance plaintiff to have standing, he "must have suffered some special damage, differing not only in degree, but in kind, from the damages sustained by the community at large"); Lutterloh v. Town of Cedar Keys,¹⁵ Fla. 306, 308 (1875) (affirming grant of an injunction to restrain a public nuisance in favor of show a "special, particular, or peculiar injury" different from a public wrong that grew out of that same conduct. Id. It stated:

[i]n order to secure an efficient administration of the law for the benefit of the public and to avoid the evil of many suits to accomplish one purpose, public wrongs are redressed at the suit of proper officials, and individuals are not permitted to maintain separate judicial proceedings to redress a wrong that is public in its nature unless the individual suffers or is threatened with some special, particular, or peculiar injury growing out of the public wrong.

Id. Subsequently, the Supreme of Florida Court expanded the special damage rule, first, to taxpayer suits seeking equitable relief against public officials without alleging a constitutional violation. Rickman v. Whitehurst, 74 So. 2d 205, 207 (Fla. 1917) (expanding the special damage rule to taxpayer actions seeking equitable relief against a public official to prevent that wrongful act).19 In U.S. Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., the Florida Supreme Court echoed its public nuisance reasoning for the Rickman rule:

a private person who suffered special injury); Alden v. Pinney, 12 Fla. 348, 350 (1868) (holding similarly). 19 See also Dep't of Revenue v. Markham, 396 So. 2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 1981) (stating that "[i]t has long been the rule in Florida that, in the absence of a constitutional challenge, a taxpayer may bring suit only upon a showing of special injury which is distinct from that suffered by other taxpayers in the taxing district"); U.S. Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So. 2d 9, 12 (Fla. 1974) (holding similarly); Town of Flagler Beach v. Green, 83 So. 2d 598, 600 (Fla. 1955) (requiring plaintiff challenging construction of building in public park to show a special injury); Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Joachim, 200 So. 238, 239 (Fla. 1941) (holding similarly); City of De Land v. Boyd, 147 So. 575, 576 (Fla. 1933) (stating in a tax suit that "private individuals, as such, have no standing in a court of equity to sue solely for the protection of the rights of the general public").

If it were otherwise there would be no end to potential litigation against a given defendant, whether he be a public official or otherwise, brought by individuals or residents, all possessed of the same general interest, since none of them would be bound by res judicata as a result of prior suits; and as against public authorities, they may be intolerably hampered in the performance of their duties and have little time for anything but the interminable litigation.

303 So. 2d at 12.

Even later, the Florida Supreme Court again expanded the special damage rule to zoning suits. See Boucher, 102 So. 2d at 135; Renard, 261 So. 2d at 837; Skaggs-Albertson's, 363 So. 2d at 1086; Chapman v. Town of Redington Beach, 282 So. 3d 979, 982-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); City of Ft. Myers v. Splitt, 988 So. 2d 28, 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). In Chapman, we echoed those same concerns in public nuisance cases to justify Boucher requiring special damage. 282 So. 3d at 983. We stated that the rule:

serves to limit the avalanche of litigation that might otherwise result from any alleged zoning violation; one need not have a surfeit of imagination to picture the results if every member of a community bothered by a single zoning violation was authorized to bring the same suit against the same defendant alleging the same general type of harm.

Id.

Apart from the special damage rule, the Florida Supreme Court created an exception to its general standing rule that prohibits public officials, in most circumstances, from challenging the constitutionality of statutes. State ex rel. Atl. Coast Line Ry. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalizers, 94 So. 681, 682-83 (Fla. 1922) (explaining that "[i]t is the doctrine of nullification, pure and simple, . . . the most ardent followers of Mr.

Calhoun never extended it to give to ministerial officers the right and power to nullify a legislative enactment").²⁰ Dist. v. Echeverri, the supreme court stated that the prohibition against standing for public officials seeking to invalidate a law was "rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers." 991 So. 2d at 800. In Barr v. Watts, the Florida Supreme Court stated that if it allowed standing to public officials to challenge statutes that the official disagreed with:

[T]he chaos and confusion which would result from the application of such a rule would be immediately apparent. We now have in this state to carry on the state's business almost 100 state agencies, boards and commissions, most of whose members hold office by virtue of executive appointment. The people of this state have the right to expect that each and every such state agency will promptly carry out and put into effect the will of the people as expressed in the legislative acts of their duly elected representatives. The state's business cannot come to a stand-still while the validity of any particular statute is contested by the very board or agency charged with the responsibility of administering it

20 See also Crossings at Flemming Island Cmty. Dev. Dist. v. Echeverri, 991 So. 2d 793, 800 (Fla. 2008) (stating that public officials "must abide by all applicable Florida statutes"); Dep't of Educ. v. Lewis, 416 So. 2d 455, 458 (Fla. 1982) (commenting that "[s]tate officers and agencies must presume legislation affecting their duties to be valid, and do not have standing to initiate litigation for the purpose of determining otherwise"); Markham, 396 So. 2d at 1121 (stating that a "[d]isagreement with a constitutional or statutory duty, or the means by which it is to be carried out, does not create a justiciable controversy or provide an occasion to give an advisory judicial opinion"), superseded by statute, § 195.092(2), Fla. Stat. (1980); Barr v. Watts, 70 So. 2d 347, 351 (Fla. 1953).

and to whom the people must look for such administration.

70 So. 2d at 351.

(2)

The Florida Supreme Court has also created two exceptions to its general standing requirement that decrease what must be shown to establish standing, including allowing taxpayers to maintain certain actions despite little direct impact on them and allowing assertion of vicarious or associational standing to groups.

First, the Supreme Court has loosened the requirements for standing and allowed citizens or taxpayers in three situations to maintain a challenge regardless of direct or specific effect on that particular citizen or taxpayer. The first situation is where a taxpayer challenges the constitutionality of acts under the legislature's taxing and spending power.²¹ Bd. of Volusia Cnty. v. Clayton, 691 So. 2d 1066, 1068 (Fla. 1997) (reaffirming Fornes and holding that in order to have standing a taxpayer must allege either a constitutional challenge or special injury); Coal. for Adequacy and Fairness in Sch. Funding, Inc., 680 So. 2d at 403 (concluding that plaintiffs had alleged standing, as taxpayers, to challenge the constitutional validity of taxing and spending power); Chiles v. Child A, B, C, D, E, & F, 589 So. 2d 260, 263 n.5 (Fla. 1991) (holding "a citizen and taxpayer can challenge the constitutional validity of an exercise of the legislature's taxing and spending power without having to demonstrate a special injury"); N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Fornes, 476 So. 2d 154, 155-56 (Fla. 1985) (finding that plaintiff did not have standing because she failed to allege either a special injury distinct from other taxpayers or a constitutional challenge to the taxing statutes at issue); Lewis, 416 So. 2d at 459 (concluding taxpayers had standing to challenge the constitutionality of proviso); Dep't of Admin. v. Horne, 269 So. 2d 659, 663 (Fla. 1972) (holding "that where there is an attack upon constitutional grounds based directly upon the Legislature's taxing and spending power, there is standing to sue without the Rickman requirement of special injury").

Court has authorized citizens to maintain an action without showing a direct or specific effect on a citizen in connection with a petition for a writ of quo warranto.²² State Dept. of Env't Regul., 390 So. 2d 64, 67-68 (Fla. 1980) (concluding that legislature did not impose special injury rule under the Florida Environmental Protection Act and any citizen had the ability to sue under the act).

Second, the Florida Supreme Court has loosened the general standing requirement and allowed, in some instances, parties to assert vicarious or associational standing on behalf of others. In a number of cases with constitutional-based challenges, the Florida Supreme Court has allowed parties, typically criminal defendants, to assert the constitutional rights of others. E.g., Jones v. State, 640 So. 2d 1084, 1085 (Fla. 1994); Stall v. State, 570 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 1990); accord State v. Long, 544 So. 2d 219, 221-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). This

22 Thompson v. DeSantis, 301 So. 3d 180, 184 (Fla. 2020) (concluding that a petitioner had standing to bring a writ of quo warranto to vindicate a public right without any direct stake in the outcome of the proceeding); Whiley v. Scott, 79 So. 3d 702, 705 (Fla. 2011) (holding individual members of the public had standing as citizens and taxpayers to challenge by quo warranto an executive order suspending agency rulemaking); Martinez v. Martinez, 545 So. 2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 1989) (stating that "[i]n quo warranto proceedings seeking the enforcement of a public right the people are the real party to the action and the person bringing suit 'need not show that he has any real or personal interest in it' ") (quoting State ex rel. Pooser v. Wester, 170 So. 736, 737 (Fla. 1936)); Wester, 170 So. at 737-38 (concluding that citizens had standing in quo warranto action to challenge illegal votes and stating "[i]t is absurd and ridiculous to contend that a candidate or a citizen has no right to relief in the face of such flagrant violation of the law."); see also Pleus v. Crist,¹⁴ So. 3d 941, 945 (Fla. 2009) (stating that a petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to compel a governor to fill a judicial vacancy had standing as a citizen and taxpayer).

exception, which derives from federal standing law, exists when a challenged restriction impacts non-parties who "stand to lose by [a proceeding's] outcome but have no effective avenue to preserve their rights." Long, 544 So. 2d at 221. Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal third-party standing test and allowed associations to, in some instances, have the standing of others imputed to them. Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Est. of Shelley, 827 So. 2d 936, 941- 44 (Fla. 2002) (adopting federal standard for third-party standing for nonpublic employers involved in requests for production of personnel records to assert their employees' privacy rights); see also NAACP, Inc. v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 863 So. 2d 294, 299 (Fla. 2003) (concluding that the NAACP had standing to challenge admissions policy for the State University System); Fla. Home Builders Ass'n v. Dep't of Lab. & Emp. Sec., 412 So. 2d 351, 352-53 (Fla. 1982) (discussing federal associational standing standard and granting trade and professional associations standing to seek to institute rule challenges under section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes (1979)).

d.

Finally, returning to J.P. and the Florida Supreme Court cases after J.P., the Florida Supreme Court continued to apply the same Florida general standing requirement after J.P. and Justices on the court only twice cited to J.P. in the context of standing, with neither being in a majority opinion. See Planned Parenthood of Sw. & Cent. Florida, 384 So. 3d at 90 (Barrios, J., concurring); Pub. Def., Eleventh Jud. Cir. of Fla. v. State, 115 So. 3d 261, 282-83 (Fla. 2013); Johnson v. State, 78 So. 3d 1305, 1315-19 (Fla. 2012) (Canady, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). And it also examined Renard and Boucher after J.P. and did not cite to J.P., indicate that it had receded from Renard or

Boucher, or otherwise modify them in the wake of its purported decision in J.P. See Haver, 330 So. 3d at 865-66.

In Planned Parenthood, Justice Barrios commented on the State's concession of standing in that case and the "inconsistent approach" the court had taken regarding standing. 384 So. 3d at 89-90 (Barrios, J., concurring). Justice Barrios cited J.P. along with an earlier third-party standing case that used the federal third-party standing standard, Alterra Healthcare. Id. at 90. In connection with those citations, Justice Barrios noted that, at times, the Florida Supreme Court "reflexively adopted federal standing tests without examining whether the Florida Constitution demands similar requirements." Id. Justice Barrios then cited a series of cases before and after J.P. that used a standing standard "less restrictive than at the federal level." Id.

In Public Defender, which was decided nine years after J.P., the Florida Supreme Court applied the general standing requirement under Florida law to conclude that a state attorney had standing to challenge a public defender's motion to withdraw. 115 So. 3d at 282-83. The court distinguished Johnson because the state attorney was a party to the proceeding. Id. at 283. There is no mention or citation to J.P. or the federal standing test in Public Defender. Id. at 261-86.

In Johnson, which was decided a year before Public Defender and eight years after J.P., the Florida Supreme Court examined whether the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (RCC) had standing to challenge a public defender's motion to withdraw. 78 So. 3d at 1308. The court articulated the test for standing as " 'requir[ing] a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly." Id. at 1314 (quoting Hayes, 952 So. 2d at 505). The court held that the RCC did not have standing because it was not a party and therefore "not in the best position" to address the motion. Id. at 1315. The majority opinion does not cite to or mention J.P. See id. at 1313-15. Then Chief Justice Canady, joined by Justice Polston, concurred in part and dissented in part. Id. at 1315-19 (Canady, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Chief Justice Canady cited and quoted J.P. and applied the federal standard to conclude that the RCC had standing. Id. at 1316-17 (Canady, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Finally, in Haver, the Florida Supreme Court considered whether injunctive relief was available against a locality for a Boucher violation. 330 So. 3d at 865-66. In concluding that an injunction was not appropriate, the court examined three of its earlier standing decisions, including Renard, and discussed the special damage rule. Id. at 863-66. There is no mention of J.P. And, nowhere in the opinion is there a comment or footnote indicating that there had been any change to Florida standing law. See id.

D.

This necessitates an attempt to reconcile Renard and J.P. and consider whether we, like the Fourth District in Everett Brothers and Citizens, should merge the two standards. See Everett Bros. Recycling, 401 So. 3d at 375-78; Citizens for Responsible Dev., 358 So. 3d at 5-8. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Renard and J.P. are not reconcilable, and we decline to merge the special injury standard with the federal standard.

Initially, at the outset, we acknowledge that for most cases the result of whether a party has standing would be unchanged regardless of what standard is used. Most cases before both federal and state courts involve either private wrongs resulting in an injury or invasions of rights that cause harm. No matter what formulation of a standard is used, standing will exist for those cases.

But we are convinced that there are cases where the standard does and will matter. The special damage rule and the federal standard take different approaches to whether there is sufficient injury to support standing. The special damage rule approaches injury comparatively and evaluates whether the injury suffered by a prospective plaintiff is different in kind and degree from the community. Boucher, 102 So. 2d at 135. The federal standard approaches injury in fact qualitatively and seeks to ensure that a prospective plaintiff suffered a "real" injury, not an abstract one. Ramirez, 594 U.S. at 423-24. The two approaches are not co-extensive.

As just one example, consider our case in Chapman. 282 So. 3d 979. In Chapman, we applied the special damage rule in a zoning dispute. Id. Among other allegations, the plaintiff there alleged that the defendant built a wall that exceeded the height limit imposed by an ordinance. Id. at 981. As the plaintiff argued, the wall caused the plaintiff special damages because the wall created significant visibility limitations and made exiting the plaintiff's driveway more dangerous. Id. at 987. We reversed a summary judgment against the plaintiff and found the allegations of special damages sufficient, including the allegation of a wall making traffic more dangerous. Id. at 983-88. We have our doubts whether a federal court applying the federal standard would reach the same conclusion on whether that type of harm is "concrete."23

23 We also believe that there may be cases where the application of the federal standing doctrine could result in a determination that a plaintiff has standing, but application of Florida's special injury rule would not. We can conceive of environmental or environmental-adjacent

Even if we were convinced that the special damage rule and the injury-in-fact standard were co-extensive or close enough, we would still be unwilling to merge the two standards, like the Fourth District did in Everett Brothers and Citizens. See Everett Bros. Recycling, 401 So. 3d at 375-78; Citizens for Responsible Dev., 358 So. 3d at 5-8. The special damage rule has never had more than a single prong. Boucher, 102 So. 2d at 135. Mashing the traceability and redressability prongs from the federal standard into the special damage rule seems to conflict with Boucher and federal standing law. We decline to do so.

E.

Finally, we must come to a conclusion on our view of J.P. and its effect on Florida standing doctrine. First, the Florida Supreme Court has emphatically emphasized to district courts that it does not overrule itself sub silentio. Stevens v. State, 226 So. 3d 787, 792 (Fla. 2017); F.B. ν. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 228-29 (Fla. 2003); Puryear v. State, 810 So. 2d 901, 905 (Fla. 2002). Yet if we were to conclude that the Supreme Court adopted the federal standing standard in J.P., it would be effectively overruling dozens of its precedents sub silentio. Standing is not some one-off case or rule. There are dozens of Florida Supreme Court decisions that preceded J.P. Yet, J.P. did not cite to or even acknowledge any of them. There is no consideration of stare decisis. We would find it astonishing if the Florida Supreme Court would abandon well-settled, longstanding precedent using a footnote without any discussion or citation to any of the cases that preceded that opinion. The court did not claims where the same kind of harm would be felt by a community. Those injuries would be "real" in the federal standing sense, but because they are the same for the entire community, they would not meet the special injury rule.

do so in any of its recent cases where it receded from or overruled such precedents. State v. Times, 434 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 2026) (receding from State v. Cable, 51 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 2010)); Maye v. State, So. 3d 51 Fla. L. Weekly S116 (Fla. May¹⁴, 2026) (receding from Plott v. State, 148 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 2014)); State v. Penna, 385 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2024) (receding from Shelly v. State, 262 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2018); Planned Parenthood of Sw. & Cent. Florida, 384 So. 3d 67 (receding from abortionrelated precedents); State v. Poole, 297 So. 3d 487, 506-07 (Fla. 2020) (discussing stare decisis and receding from Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)). We do not believe that the Florida Supreme Court intended to do so in J.P.

Second, we believe that the footnote in J.P. was likely nothing more than dicta. As the Florida Supreme Court itself has said, "[a]ny statement of law in a judicial opinion that is not a holding is dictum." Pedroza v. State, 291 So. 3d 541, 547 (Fla. 2020). In Pedroza, the supreme court articulated three principles for what constitutes a holding. Id. There, the court said that "[a] holding consists of those propositions along the chosen decisional path or paths of reasoning that (1) are actually decided, (2) are based upon the facts of the case, and (3) lead to the judgment." Id. (quoting State v. Yule, 905 So. 2d 251, 249 n.10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (Canady, J., specially concurring)).

J.P.'s footnote was part of a sentence where the court did no more than announce that it was not going to reach an issue raised by a party. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1113. It was unnecessary for the court to discuss the applicable standing standard as it was not deciding a standing issue. It does not meet any of the principles in Pedroza and was not part of a holding in J.P. Our conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the subsequent majority opinions of the Florida Supreme Court continued to apply Florida's general standing requirement and did not apply or cite to J.P. Public Defender, 115 So. 3d at 282-83; Johnson, 78 So. 3d at 1308. Almost as telling to us as Public Defender and Johnson is the court's even more recent opinion in Haver. The court in Haver discussed Boucher and Renard at length. 330 So. 3d at 863-66. If the court had abrogated either the general standing requirement or intended to graft the special damage rule onto the federal standing requirements, it surely would have, at least, acknowledged J.P. It neither cited to nor acknowledged J.P. or the federal standard. Justice Sasso's concurring opinion in Planned Parenthood does cause us to hesitate. But, in the end, the bulk of her opinion is not about J.P. It is, instead, about the inconsistencies of Florida standing law and its lack of mooring to the text of the Florida Constitution. As can likely be discerned from this opinion, we agree with Justice Sasso's sentiments. Much of Florida's standing law seems to be prudential or policy considerations and is not textually driven. See, e.g., Fornes, 476 So. 2d at 156 (discussing taxpayer standing and stating that "all these standing rules are based on highly debatable policy choices") (quoting Paul v. Blake, 376 So. 2d 256, 259-60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)). We are nonetheless bound to apply them. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431, 440 (Fla. 1973).

In such situations, the Florida Supreme Court has instructed us that "[w]here a court encounters an express holding from [the Florida Supreme Court] on a specific issue and a subsequent contrary dicta statement on the same specific issue, the court is to apply our express holding...." Puryear, 810 So. 2d at 905. Therefore, we will apply Renard to the facts of the case to determine whether Talbot has standing.

III.

Given our ruling on the applicability of Haver to Talbot's claims against the City, it appears what claims are left are the claims contained in counts I and IV of the amended complaint. Both claims are in effect Boucher claims. Under Renard, a plaintiff asserting a Boucher claim must suffer "special damages" to have standing. 261 So. 2d at 837. Again, the supreme court defined special damages as "a definite interest exceeding the general interest in community good share[d] in common with all citizens." Id. Talbot emphasizes in its briefs and at oral argument that, under Renard, a court must consider "the proximity of [the party's] property to the property to be zoned or rezoned, the character of the neighborhood, . . . and the type of change proposed." Id. Talbot heavily leans on the proximity of its building, the Stein building, to Venture's Miles Ybor building to support its standing argument. Talbot has two problems (1) it is unclear what the precise zoning violation is that Talbot complains about and (2) Talbot's only asserted injury is its partially obstructed view. Given that the trial court dismissed this action on a motion to dismiss, we choose to address only the injury issue.

We could find no case, and Talbot cited none, that held partially obstructing a view, with no other type of injury, is a sufficient injury under the special damages rule. The only case cited by the parties involving solely an obstructed view as the claimed injury dismissed the complaint, concluding that an obstructed view, without more, was insufficient to create standing. Messett v. Cohen, 741 So. 2d 619, 622-23 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

The closest we have come to dealing with such an assertion previously was in Chapman. 282 So. 3d 979. There, the plaintiff asserted a Boucher claim against an adjoining property owner. Id. at

982-83. We reversed in part a grant of summary judgment on standing grounds, concluding that the plaintiff had alleged special damage sufficiently. Id. at 983-88. The alleged special damage asserted in that case included blocked views, but also various other unlawful changes that made the plaintiff's property "materially less safe and materially less valuable." Id. at 981, 985-86. In that opinion, we provided an illustration (which we called a "a thought experiment") to explain why proximity and adjacency might be important for standing purposes under the case law that developed after Boucher. Id. at 984-85. We considered a hypothetical waterfront community shaped like a “W” where one house in the center had been built higher than the rest of the community. Id. We observed that only the adjacent property owner behind the offending building would have suffered an injury sufficient for standing purposes. Id. at 985.

Id.24

Because although there might be some similarity about the injuries suffered by all community members (impairment of a view), only the landowner immediately behind the new house has had his view blocked entirely. The difference is so significant as to make any similarity to the injury suffered by other landowners immaterial; it amounts to a difference in kind, and it is directly related to proximity and position with regard to the land on which the zoning violation occurred.

Unlike the building in Chapman's illustration, Talbot has not alleged that the view is completely occluded or blocked. Instead, it alleged that the view with the now constructed building is "not the

24 Chapman also relied heavily on other allegations of injury including the dangerousness of a wall that obstructed the plaintiff's and oncoming traffic's view of cars in a driveway. Id. at 985-88.

" expansive and visually appealing view" that it was before. While the waterfront home example we provided in Chapman may not have been a holding, the illustration remains useful for resolving this case: the allegations here are different from the outcome there. We hold that a partial obstruction of view is an insufficient injury absent some other injury to meet the special damage requirement to prove standing. Our holding is consistent with the decisions of other courts in Florida. See, e.g., Kagan v. West, 677 So. 2d 905, 908-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (concluding that a plaintiff had alleged and proven special damages with allegations that a building blocked their view of a river and limited their ability to walk down a street to a canal); State ex rel. Gardner v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 306 So. 2d 616, 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (holding a special injury was sufficiently alleged where landowners alleged that construction on a nearby island would "build a 'Chinese Wall' across the waterway obstructing their view and increased the risk of flooding). It is also consistent with decisions in other districts that there is no cause of action for "cutting off the light and air and interfering with the view that would otherwise be available over adjoining land in its natural state." Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357, 359-60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (citing cases from across the United States that do not recognize such a cause of action). Finally, today's decision reflects an earlier Fifth District decision that the Florida Supreme Court approved. Town of Indialantic v. Nance, 400 So. 2d 37, 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), app'd, 419 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1982) (stating that "[i]n the absence of some contractual or statutory obligation, a landowner has no absolute legal right to unobstructed air and light from the adjoining land").

IV.

Consistent with Haver, we affirm the dismissal of Talbot's claims against the City seeking injunctive or declaratory relief requiring it to enforce its zoning ordinances. 330 So. 3d at 865-66. We also affirm the dismissal of all of Talbot's remaining claims because Talbot did not suffer special damage and, therefore, lacked standing. In doing so, we expressly refuse to adopt J.P. and the federal standing standard as the standard that applies in Florida's courts and decline to add the special damage requirement to the federal standard as the Fourth District has done. Pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, we certify this decision to be in express and direct conflict with the following decisions of our sister courts:

(1) Everett Bros. Recycling, Inc. v. Martin Cnty., 401 So. 3d 372, 375-78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025); and
(2) Citizens for Responsible Dev., Inc. v. City of Dania Beach, 358 So. 3d 1, 5-8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

Also, pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, we certify this decision to be in direct conflict with the following decisions of our sister courts insofar as the decisions cite to footnote⁴ of the J.P. opinion as the applicable standard for standing in Florida and apply the same to their standing analysis:

(1) Frank v. Conlan, 434 So. 3d 452, 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026);
(2) Pet Supermarket, Inc. v. Eldridge, 360 So. 3d 1201, 1205-06 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023);
(3) Saleh v. Miami Gardens Square One, Inc., 353 So. 3d 1253, 1254-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023);
(4) Southam v. Red Wing Shoe Co., 343 So. 3d 106, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022);

(5) Cmty. Power Network Corp. v. JEA, 327 So. 3d 412, 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021); (6) DeSantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass'n, 306 So. 3d 1202, 1213-14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); and (7) Giuffre v. Edwards, 226 So. 3d 1034, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Finally, pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, we certify the following question to the supreme court as one of great public importance:

DID THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IN STATE ν. J.P., 907 SO. 2D 1101, 1113 N.4 (FLA. 2004),

REPLACE FLORIDA'S STANDING STANDARD

WITH THE FEDERAL STANDARD?

We have answered the certified question for the above reasons in the negative.

Affirmed; conflicts certified; question certified to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance.

LUCAS, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.