News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

Figgy1

Figgy1

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
Not sure where you see change about landowners and dissolving a district from this bill...

What this bill does is add to the definition of what is an inactive district, defining if it has no revenue, no expenses, no debt.. for 5 consecutive years... the state can declare it inactive.

The 12yr thing is a term limit on board members. And I don't believe it applies to CFTOD anyway due to this clause "This section does not apply to a community development district established under chapter 190, or an independent special district created pursuant to a special act that provides that any amendment to chapter 190 to grant additional powers9constitutes a power of the district."

Really this bill has little to do with CFTOD except talking about performance reporting.. which is nothing more than hot air stuff.
Click to expand...
I saw a different article earlier today that said the bill may include language giving landowners the power to dissolve districts with no specifics on how that would work.
 
Brian

Brian

Well-Known Member
Figgy1 said:
I saw a different article earlier today that said the bill may include language giving landowners the power to dissolve districts with no specifics on how that would work.
Click to expand...
That was in the original bill as filed, but it was later removed.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
mikejs78 said:
Appeals courts can also overturn findings of fact, but that is not common and only done when the finding of fact is clearly wrong.
Click to expand...
That's true, but where a case is dismissed on the pleadings - as it was here - the trial court must accept as true the facts alleged by the party opposing the motion to dismiss. The facts are not at issue at this stage, which is why the appellate court will not have to defer in any respect to the decision of the district court. It can merely substitute its judgment for that of the lower court on how the law is to be interpreted. The nature of appellate review changes based on how far the case got before the trial court ended it.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Premium Member
Chi84 said:
That's true, but where a case is dismissed on the pleadings - as it was here - the trial court must accept as true the facts alleged by the party opposing the motion to dismiss. The facts are not at issue at this stage, which is why the appellate court will not have to defer in any respect to the decision of the district court. It can merely substitute its judgment for that of the lower court on how the law is to be interpreted. The nature of appellate review changes based on how far the case got before the trial court ended it.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity and not related to this dismissal - does the nature of appellate review differ in a jury trial vs a bench trial?
 
castlecake2.0

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
83ABE98F-983D-4BE1-B648-BD71651D6889.jpeg

Garcia when he realizes he can’t rename Reedy Creek Energy Services to “district energy services” because it’s fully owned by Disney
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
mikejs78 said:
Just out of curiosity and not related to this dismissal - does the nature of appellate review differ in a jury trial vs a bench trial?
Click to expand...
The nature of review is tied more to how a decision is made than who makes it. In a bench trial the judge acts as the trier of fact instead of the jury.

For example, if there is witness testimony, the jury (or the judge acting as fact finder in a bench trial) has the advantage of seeing the witness and is therefore better positioned to decide who is telling the truth. In that case, a reviewing court will defer to the fact finder and there is a high standard that needs to be met before overturning fact findings.

But if the decision is based only on the law, there is no deference to what happens in the lower court because the appellate court is presumed to know the law just as well as the trial court and has authority to overturn its rulings based on law.

This is an interesting article on how few trials actually take place in the country.
judicature.duke.edu

Going, Going, But Not Quite Gone: Trials Continue to Decline in Federal and State Courts. Does it Matter?

There were 20,581 trials in federal district courts in 1997 and 11,754 in 2016. By this measure, trials diminished by approximately 43% in just under 20 years.
judicature.duke.edu judicature.duke.edu

It’s a bit old but you get the idea.
 
Stripes

Stripes

Premium Member
Brian said:
According to Foglesong, yes.

Imho, this does strike me as a political question and not a legal one. Disney would be wise to pressure DeSantis and the legislature by withholding future development, and mounting a public relations campaign against them, in order to bring him to the negotiating table.

That's how this gets resolved, in my mind. Disney may have a case against CFTOD for monetary damages, but there wouldn't be a remedy to revert things back to the old RCID.
Click to expand...
There’s no turning back now. DeSantis will never negotiate with Disney after how much he has publicized this feud.

Politically, the worst thing he could do is reach some deal with Disney. It would look like he was caving and the headlines would be humiliating.

If he loses in court, he can still claim that he “never backed down.”

Between the two headlines below, which do you think DeSantis would prefer?

”DeSantis caves, makes deal with Disney”

”Supreme Court rules against DeSantis in Disney lawsuit”
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom