JA v. State, 788 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
JA v. State, 788 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. JP (fla, 2004-11-18)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. JP (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. · 2004 · confidence medium
T.M. v. State, 784 So.2d 442, 444 (Fla. 2001); J.P. v. State, 788 So.2d 953, 953 (Fla.2001).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. J.P. (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. · 2004 · confidence medium
T.M. v. State, 784 So.2d 442, 444 (Fla.2001); J.P. v. State, 788 So.2d 953, 953 (Fla.2001).
cited Cited "see" State v. TM
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.P. v. State, 788 So.2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see" State v. T.M.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.P. v. State, 788 So.2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see" JP v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.P. v. State, 788 So.2d 953 (Fla.2001). [1] Without addressing the second question, the supreme court remanded the matter back to this court to apply the strict scrutiny test to the ordinance.
cited Cited "see" J.A. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.A. v. State, 779 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), quashed 788 So.2d 953 (Fla.2001).’ In affirming the trial, court, this court applied the heightened scrutiny test.
cited Cited "see" J.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.P. v. State, 788 So.2d 953 (Fla.2001). 1 Without addressing the second question, the supreme court remanded the matter back to this court to apply the strict scrutiny test to the ordinance.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
J.A., a child, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
SC00-1506.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jun 14, 2001.
788 So. 2d 953
Per Curiam.
Published

[*954] James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, FL, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Respondent.

James D. Palermo, City Attorney, and Jerry M. Gewirtz, Assistant City Attorney, Tampa, FL, for City of Tampa, Amicus Curiae.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review J.A. v. State, 779 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), in which the Second District Court of Appeal certified the following questions to be of great public importance:

WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE?
WHETHER THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL[.]

Id. at 390-91. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

In T.M. v. State, 784 So.2d 442 (Fla. 2001), we answered the first certified question by holding that strict scrutiny applies to juvenile curfew ordinances. As in T.M., we decline to answer the second certified question, quash the decision of the district court, and remand this case for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.