LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: FREDERIC GUTTENBERG v. SMITH & WESSON, CORP. (fladistctapp, 2023-01-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) FREDERIC GUTTENBERG v. SMITH & WESSON, CORP.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Hearings, 661 So. 2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 1995) (alteration in original) (quoting LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see also Fla. Soc’y of Ophthalmology v. State, Dep’t of Pro.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hall v. Southcreek Homeowners
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Hearings, 661 So. 2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 1995) (alteration in original) (quoting LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Citizens of the State Ex Rel. Office of Public Counsel v. Florida Public Service Commission & Utilities, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
In Santa Rosa County , our supreme court stated: “Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment,[ 6 ] what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the possibility of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical ‘state of facts which have not arisen’ and are only ‘contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future.’ ” Id. at 1198 (emphasis omitted) (quoting LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donovan v. Okaloosa County
Fla. · 2012 · confidence medium
Comm'n, 661 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Fla.1995) (“Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment, what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the possibility of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical state of facts which have not arisen and are only contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future.” (quoting LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (internal quotation marks omitted))); Interlachen Latees Estates, Inc. v. Brooks, 341 So.2d 993, 995 (Fla.1976). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Florida Dept. of Ins. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Hearings, 661 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 1995) (emphasis in original), quoting LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (quoting Williams v. Howard, 329 So.2d 277, 283 (Fla.1976)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Olive v. Maas
Fla. · 2002 · confidence medium
This same reasoning was espoused in Santa Rosa County v. Administration Commission, 661 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1995), where the Court noted: [I]t is well settled that "Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment, what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the possibility of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical `state of facts which have not arisen' and are only `contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future. '" Id. at 1193 (quoting LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Santa Rosa Cty. v. ADMIN. COM'N
Fla. · 1995 · confidence medium
Additionally, it is well settled that, "Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment, what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the possibility of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical `state of facts which have not arisen' and are only `contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future.'" LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (quoting Williams v. Howard, 329 So.2d 277, 283 (Fla. 1976)); see also American Indemnity Co. v. Southern Credit Acceptance, Inc., 147 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (holding…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Palma v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment, what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the possibility of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical "state of facts which have not arisen" and are only "contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future." LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
discussed Cited "see" OSCAR A. QUINTERO v. CENTERLINE SERVICES, LLC, etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment, what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the possibility of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical ‘state of facts which have not arisen’ and are only ‘contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future.’” (quoting Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277, 283 (Fla. 1976))). 2
cited Cited "see, e.g." Monroe County, Florida, Etc. v. Sunset Gardens Estate Land Trust 2/10/2014, Etc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Aaronson v. White, 324 So. 3d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). 12 the future.’” (quoting LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981))).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Scanlan, 582 So.2d 1167, 1174 (Fla.1991); see also LaBella v. Food Fair, Inc., 406 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Antoinette LaBELLA and Donna LaBella, As Parent and Natural Guardian of Vincent Michael LaBella, a Minor, Appellants,
v.
FOOD FAIR, INC., a Foreign Corporation, and the State of Florida, Appellees.
81-537.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec 1, 1981.
406 So. 2d 1216
Hubbart, C.J., and Barkdull and Schwartz.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 51%

[*1217] Kaplan, Sicking, Hessen, Sugarman, Rosenthal & DeCastro and Richard A. Sicking, Miami, for appellants.

Adams, Kelley & Kronenberg and Steven P. Kronenberg, Miami, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, C.J., and BARKDULL and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

In 1973, Michael LaBella, who is now 85 years of age, was seriously injured in an industrial accident while employed by Food Fair, Inc. He has received permanent total disability workers' compensation payments ever since. In 1980, alleging they were his dependents and therefore the potential recipients of any compensation benefits payable for his death,[1] LaBella's wife, daughter and grandson brought an action in the circuit court for a declaratory judgment that the blanket five-year limitation in Section 440.16(1), Florida Statutes (1979) is unconstitutional. The provision states:

440.16 Compensation for death.
(1) If death results from the accident within 1 year thereafter or follows continuous disability and results from the accident within 5 years thereafter, the employer shall pay ... (emphasis supplied)

The trial court dismissed the complaint and we affirm that decision.

Mr. LaBella has not yet died. There is therefore no way of knowing either (a) whether any of the plaintiffs will survive him or, (b) even more obviously, whether his death will be a result of the 1973 accident. Both of these contingencies must occur for any death benefits to be recovered even if the appellants' position on the constitutional question were upheld. It is well-settled, however, that Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment, what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the possibility of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical "state of facts which have not arisen" and are only "contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future." Williams v. Howard, 329 So.2d 277, 283 (Fla. 1976) and cases cited; Robinson v. Town of Palm Beach Shores, 388 So.2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); American Indemnity Co. v. Southern Credit Acceptance, Inc., 147 So.2d 10, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) ("[T]he courts[*1218] may not be required to answer a hypothetical question or one based upon events which may or may not occur."); Harris v. Harris, 138 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 146 So.2d 374 (Fla. 1962). The clear applicability of this principle to the present situation requires that the judgment under review be

Affirmed.

1 See Sec. 440.16(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1979).