Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Terry Jorgenson, T.D.J., Inc., D/B/A Porky's, and Eric A. Latinsky, Fred W. Fendt v. County of Volusia, Edwin H. Duff, Ii. In His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Volusia County
Citations: 846 F.2d 1350; 11 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 516; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8065Docket: 87-3703
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; June 14, 1988; Federal Appellate Court
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of sanctions against attorneys Eric Latinsky and Fred Fendt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The attorneys had filed a memorandum in support of their application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, challenging a Volusia County ordinance prohibiting nude or semi-nude entertainment in establishments serving alcohol. However, they failed to cite two relevant cases—City of Daytona Beach v. Del Percio and New York State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca—that were critical to the legal standards governing their challenge. The case of Del Percio, which had been decided shortly before their application, confirmed that Florida had delegated authority under the Twenty-First Amendment to local governments, affecting how the ordinance's validity should be assessed. The court noted that the appellants' omission of this precedent warranted sanctions, as it indicated a failure to conduct adequate legal research necessary for their argument. The decision emphasizes the importance of citing controlling precedent in legal documents, particularly in specialized fields such as the regulation of alcohol in connection with entertainment. Appellants attempted to guide the district court by describing the law but failed to disclose a recent Supreme Court of Florida decision, which constitutes a misleading act. Their obligation to present the current state of the law was not satisfied, even though opposing counsel later cited the relevant precedent. The appellants argued that certain cases were not controlling; however, these arguments appear to be an afterthought aimed at avoiding sanctions, lacking support in their original filings. The district court found the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions appropriate, leading to the affirmation of its judgment.