district court recognized principle in Florida

1988We approve the decision under review and, to the extent it conflicts with this opinion, disapprove Britt v. Department of Professional Regulation, 492 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

1987The district court recognized the principle that "`an action undertaken for the benefit of another, even gratuitously, must be performed in accordance with an obligation to exercise reasonable care,'" id. at 961 (quoting Barfield v. Langley, 432 So.2d 748, 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)), but found that "the action undertaken here only required the exercise of reasonable care as to the lane occupied by the signaling driver." 469 So.2d at 963 .

1984The district court recognized the principle that the "legislature can treat the simultaneous unlawful taking of two or more of a particular object of property as separate thefts." 427 So.2d at 762 .

1984The district court further recognized, however, that where the "legislature does not establish the allowable unit of prosecution with clarity, the ambiguity must be resolved in the accused's favor." Id.

1982In considering the constitutional validity of the statute, the district court recognized the principle, expressed in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-457 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976), that, to withstand scrutiny under the equal protection clause, "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be *266 substantially related to achievement of those objectives." The court determined that the only sufficiently important governmental objective under this statute is to ensure that the civil obligation of jury service will not improperly interfere with

1982In considering the constitutional validity of the statute, the district court recognized the principle, expressed in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 , 97 S.Ct. 451, 456-457 , 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976), that, to withstand scrutiny under the equal protection clause, "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be *266 substantially related to achievement of those objectives." The court determined that the only sufficiently important governmental objective under this statute is to ensure that the civil obligation of jury service will not improperly interfere with

1979In McCoy the district court recognized this principle in finding that the full amount of the renewal note was subject to documentary stamp tax: To rule that a note which includes the obligation of another note (and does not fall within the exemption of § 201.09, supra) is exempt from the tax would fly in the face of the very terms of the statute which taxes renewal notes — § 201.08(1), supra. It was clearly the legislative intent of § 201.08(1), supra, to tax a renewal note for the full amount of the obligation if it included the obligation of another note and was not covered by the exemption