TH v. State, 797 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
TH v. State, 797 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: M.S., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2017-11-29)
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M.S., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
See H.N.B., 223 So. 3d at 309 (finding no statutory violation even though the fight on school grounds caused students to crowd around, because, despite the disturbance, the incident “had not disrupted the bus service or the serving of breakfast”); T.H. v. State, 797 So. 2d 1291, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (finding there was no evidence of knowing or intentional conduct designed to disrupt a school function or activity in a case involving a fight over a girl at school before class began, as “[t]he fuel for the fight was jealousy”); L.T., 941 So. 2d at 552-53 (finding insufficient evidence…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.J. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
“The statute seeks to prohibit acts which are ‘specifically and intentionally designed to stop or temporarily impede the progress of any normal school function or activity occurring on the school’s property.’ ” T.H. v. State, 797 So.2d 1291, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting M.C. v. State, 695 So.2d 477, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JJ v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
"The statute seeks to prohibit acts which are `specifically and intentionally designed to stop or temporarily impede the progress of any normal school function or activity occurring on the school's property.'" T.H. v. State, 797 So.2d 1291, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting M.C. v. State, 695 So.2d 477, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) T.T. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
The statute is designed to prohibit acts that are “specifically and intentionally designed to stop or temporarily impede the progress of any normal school function or activity occurring on the school’s property.” T.H. v. State, 797 So.2d 1291, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting M.C. v. State, 695 So.2d 477, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)) (holding that statute is not overbroad or unconstitutionally vague).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TT v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
The statute is designed to prohibit acts that are "specifically and intentionally designed to stop or temporarily impede the progress of any normal school function or activity occurring on the school's property." T.H. v. State, 797 So.2d 1291, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting M.C. v. State, 695 So.2d 477, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)) (holding that statute is not overbroad or unconstitutionally vague).
cited Cited "see" H.N.B., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 298 . 797 So.2d at 1292 .
discussed Cited "see" C.K. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See T.H. v. State, 797 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
discussed Cited "see" CK v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See T.H. v. State, 797 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
T.H., a child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
4D01-837.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct 31, 2001.
797 So. 2d 1291
Gross.
Published

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Dea Abramschmitt, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Michael J. Neimand, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, and Steven A. Halim, Legal Intern, Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

[*1292] GROSS, J.

We affirm appellant's conviction for battery on a school board employee. § 784.081(3), Fla. Stat. (2000).

We reverse the conviction for knowingly disrupting or interfering with the lawful administration or functions of an educational institution. § 877.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000). The statute seeks to prohibit acts which are "specifically and intentionally designed to stop or temporarily impede the progress of any normal school function or activity occurring on the school's property." M.C. v. State, 695 So.2d 477, 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Appellant got into a fight with another student on a high school campus at 7:00 a.m., before school began. The fight was over a girl. The fuel for the fight was jealousy. There was no evidence of knowing or intentional conduct designed to disrupt a school function or activity. Also, no school function or activity was taking place at the time and location of the fight. Unlike A.C. v. State, 479 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), appellant did not pick a fight with students waiting to go home on the school bus; transportation of students to and from school is clearly part of the administration of an educational institution under section 877.13(1). See id. at 298.

We remand for the trial court to enter a new disposition order reflecting only the battery conviction.

KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.