ROBERT R. DEMPSEY, ROYALL P. TERRY, JR., AND ROBERT W. WENNERHOLM, PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE RETIREMENT COMMISSION AND DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDENTS
PER CURIAM.
Petition for review is DENIED. See Shields v. Division of Retirement et al., 352 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur. BOYER, Acting C. J., concurring specially.
BOYER, Acting Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur with the majority, but only in deference to the doctrine of stare decisis and the majority of another panel of this court. Had I been a member of the panel considering Shields v. Division of Retirement, cited above, I would have agreed with the well reasoned and articulated dissent authored by Judge Rawls. However, I was not a member of that panel and it is clear that the decision in that case is determinative here.
Further, in my view, Shields v. Division of Retirement and this decision affects a class of constitutional or state officers and passes upon a question of great public interest and should therefore be reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(3) of the Constitution of the State of Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crawford v. Division OF Retirement, 369 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…DCA 1976), cert. denied 344 So. 2d 323 (Fla.1977); Shields v. Division of Retirement, 352 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. discharged and appeal dismissed, 368 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1978) (rehearing denied); Dempsey v. State Retirement Commission, 354 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied 360 So. 2d 1248 (Fla.1978). Similarly under the same authorities, the challenge to Rule 22B-1.05 is without merit. Accordingly, the order denying appellants’ special risk membership is affirmed. McCORD, C. J., and…
Authorities Cited
- Harmon v. Shields, 352 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)