Serpico Jones
Well-Known Member
I still can’t believe it’s gotten to this point and cooler heads didn’t prevail.
I still can’t believe it’s gotten to this point and cooler heads didn’t prevail.
Question is if Disney will sue to stop any of this, or just let it ride?Can someone with access to a legal database tell me if either:
have been superseded?
- US Trust Co vs New Jersey (1977) -or-
- Allied Structural Steel vs Spannaus (1978)
ETA: Both were SCOTUS cases in which the state tried to invalidate a contract to which it was a party.
SCOTUS said (I'm summarizing):
That ... does not seem to be happening in the Florida legislation out today.
- Courts should use strict scrutiny when evaluating the state's claims
- The state has to list the specific thing to which it's objecting
- The state must use the least-disruptive means necessary to resolve the objection
It doesn’t contradict at all. You said if they do anything wrong then we have to wait 4 years to vote the governor out. I said thats not how it works. There are Federal and State laws that need to be followed and a constitution (also federal and state) so checks and balances. Their only repercussion isn’t to wait 4 years to vote someone different in.That was *exactly* my point.
This statement completely contradicts your first.
Do you feel that there are no political consequences for actions taken by political appointees or do you feel in this specific insance, the electorate would reward those actions with re-election?
I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.So the state will win by further violating home rule and telling the counties and their independently elected property appraisers how much to assess certain properties within their jurisdiction?
The majority of posters who are lawyers or have worked in Fl government dealing with laws that apply here agree Disney has an excellent chance of winning.I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.
There's nothing wrong with that, but the article is very short and doesn't explain anything about how the state could claim self-dealing. Opinions are only as good as the facts or information supporting them.I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.
It’s not specifically about her either. It’s all of his living descendants. So if one his grandsons is the last one living then it ends after his death.You're correct. 21 years after her death. May she live as long as her great grandmother.
Yep. The only landowner that would object would be the district itself and they were obviously noticed and entered into the agreement.The entire “void the entire contract because RCID failed to notify all landowners 60 days in advance by mail” seems highly dubious.
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the former RCID board did fail to notify all of the district’s landowners.
The typical judge is going to hold up the contract, make sure all landowners are notified and, if none object within the 60 days required by statute, allow the contract to take effect.
What district landowner is going to object? They all have close business relationships with Disney. Are any of them going to want the new crazy board deciding what Disney can do instead of Disney?
Any judge worth their salt seeks the least invasive remedy.
You provided a sound bite that has no supporting information.I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.
I disagree. I think that DeSantis needs and wants an off-ramp, lest he be viewed as "losing" to Disney by his base, and compromising his future political ambitions.That's not what the state wants. They want to control Disney. They don't want a cooler heads compromise. They want domination.
Yes, and I have read the posts and they do not appear to be unbiased against a certain Gov or political party. There are 2 sides to every disagreement, and no one side is totally correct. So as I posted many pages back, do not underestimate your opponent.The majority of posters who are lawyers or have worked in Fl government dealing with laws that apply here agree Disney has an excellent chance of winning.
The law doesn’t say all land owners within a jurisdiction. It says all “affected” land owners. Is the CVS in Flamingo Crossing an affected land owner if they’re not a party to nor bound by the agreement?The entire “void the entire contract because RCID failed to notify all landowners 60 days in advance by mail” seems highly dubious.
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the former RCID board did fail to notify all of the district’s landowners.
The typical judge is going to hold up the contract, make sure all landowners are notified and, if none object within the 60 days required by statute, allow the contract to take effect.
What district landowner is going to object? They all have close business relationships with Disney. Are any of them going to want the new crazy board deciding what Disney can do instead of Disney?
Any judge worth their salt seeks the least invasive remedy.
I disagree. I think that DeSantis needs an off-ramp, lest he be viewed as "losing" to Disney by his base, and compromising his future political ambitions.
If I were Iger, I'd be calling up DeSantis and trying to game out a mutually agreeable solution to the issue, where nobody comes out with egg on their face. What that solution would look like, I'm not sure, but one of these guys went to Yale and Harvard, and the other has run a Fortune 50 company for over a decade. In other words, they're both intelligent men; I'm sure they can figure something out.
None of this to say that Disney is obligated to make amends, but clearly this situation is just going to keep getting more and more ridiculous with each passing day, and, despite the protestations of some, they can't just pickup WDW and move it somewhere else. Disney would be wise to open the lines of communication up right at the top of the org chart and start working towards an off-ramp where DeSantis can claim "victory" with his base and Disney doesn't take a huge PR and/or monetary hit, or compromise on their claimed values.
Again, should Disney have to do this? No. But clearly this situation will just continue escalating, so it would be wise for Disney to attempt to put a stop to it sooner rather than later.
I disagree. I think that DeSantis needs an off-ramp, lest he be viewed as "losing" to Disney by his base, and compromising his future political ambitions.
If I were Iger, I'd be calling up DeSantis and trying to game out a mutually agreeable solution to the issue, where nobody comes out with egg on their face. What that solution would look like, I'm not sure, but one of these guys went to Yale and Harvard, and the other has run a Fortune 50 company for over a decade. In other words, they're both intelligent men; I'm sure they can figure something out.
None of this to say that Disney is obligated to make amends, but clearly this situation is just going to keep getting more and more ridiculous with each passing day, and, despite the protestations of some, they can't just pickup WDW and move it somewhere else. Disney would be wise to open the lines of communication up right at the top of the org chart and start working towards an off-ramp where DeSantis can claim "victory" with his base and Disney doesn't take a huge PR and/or monetary hit, or compromise on their claimed values.
Again, should Disney have to do this? No. But clearly this situation will just continue escalating, so it would be wise for Disney to attempt to put a stop to it sooner rather than later.
I'm not sure any amount of legal research is going to help with this particular situation. A court's analysis of the contracts clause is generally going to begin with the assumption that legislation, by its nature, is meant to have broad application and is not directly targeted at interfering with an individual's or a business's contract rights. The interference considered in these cases is ancillary - collateral damage - to the purpose of the legislation.Can someone with access to a legal database tell me if either:
have been superseded?
- US Trust Co vs New Jersey (1977) -or-
- Allied Structural Steel vs Spannaus (1978)
ETA: Both were SCOTUS cases in which the state tried to invalidate a contract to which it was a party.
SCOTUS said (I'm summarizing):
That ... does not seem to be happening in the Florida legislation out today.
- Courts should use strict scrutiny when evaluating the state's claims
- The state has to list the specific thing to which it's objecting
- The state must use the least-disruptive means necessary to resolve the objection
Exactly. It’s to score political points.Cooler heads could prevail if this was about solving an actual problem that they could come to an agreement over.
It seems like maybe a case of bad reporting. I don’t know what to take as the so called expert‘s opinion and what’s added by the writer.I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.
Exactly. Not following every step of the law does not guarantee an automatic judgement against a defendant, whether in a civil lawsuit or a criminal case. Sometimes judges will just see something like this as an honest mistake or oversight and will allow the party at fault to remedy the situation in good faith, rather than just going for a straight up judgement not in favor of.The entire “void the entire contract because RCID failed to notify all landowners 60 days in advance by mail” seems highly dubious.
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the former RCID board did fail to notify all of the district’s landowners.
The typical judge is going to hold up the contract, make sure all landowners are notified and, if none object within the 60 days required by statute, allow the contract to take effect.
What district landowner is going to object? They all have close business relationships with Disney. Are any of them going to want the new crazy board deciding what Disney can do instead of Disney?
Any judge worth their salt seeks the least invasive remedy.
You're not wrong on many of those opportunities, especially when it came to reconstituting RCID into CFTOD and the board's composition.He's had multiple chances at an off ramp and has chosen not to take them. He wants complete domination here of Disney.
He never had to pick this fight to begin with. The education bills were going to get passed regardless of Disney weighing in or not. He could have just ignored them and still gotten what he wanted legislatively.
When they created the law giving him full control of the board, he had other options. Maybe allow the state to pick 3 and Disney to pick 2. He then could have exited claiming a W.
But at every step of the way, he's double and tripled down on this. He doesn't want a partial win. He wants a complete win. He's so far into it now though that he no longer has a choice. He has to keep fighting even if he realizes he's losing. Backing out now would be viewed as weakness and this whole thing was about PR more than anything.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.