Narrative Opinion Summary
The order under review is affirmed, as appellants were required to file refund claims prior to invoking the circuit court’s jurisdiction, referencing Westring v. State, Dep’t of Revenue and State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Bauta. The court certifies a conflict with Nemeth v. Florida Dep’t of Revenue and Public Med. Assistance Trust Fund v. Hameroff. Additionally, it certifies to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein has overruled or receded from State ex rel. Victor Chemical Works v. Gay. The decision is affirmed, with both conflict and a question of great public importance certified.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Decision with Certificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the decision while certifying both a conflict and a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed, with both conflict and a question of great public importance certified.
Certification of Conflict in Judicial Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court identified and certified a conflict with the decisions in Nemeth v. Florida Dep’t of Revenue and Public Med. Assistance Trust Fund v. Hameroff.
Reasoning: The court certifies a conflict with Nemeth v. Florida Dep’t of Revenue and Public Med. Assistance Trust Fund v. Hameroff.
Certification of Question to the Supreme Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the potential overruling or receding of a precedent by a more recent decision.
Reasoning: Additionally, it certifies to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein has overruled or receded from State ex rel. Victor Chemical Works v. Gay.
Requirement for Filing Refund Claims Before Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the necessity for appellants to file refund claims prior to seeking jurisdiction in the circuit court.
Reasoning: The order under review is affirmed, as appellants were required to file refund claims prior to invoking the circuit court’s jurisdiction, referencing Westring v. State, Dep’t of Revenue and State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Bauta.