Home
Jacksonville Location Phone Call/Texting Policy How do Fees Work?
Criminal Defense DUI Defense Foreclosure Defense Copyright Workers Compensation Attorney Jacksonville Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statutes Georgia Code Jacksonville Accident Attorney Real Estate Attorney Jacksonville Florida Criminal Lawyer Jacksonville Notary Public
Menu
904-383-7448
Florida Statute 86.091 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 86.091 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 86.091

The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)
Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 86
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 86.091
86.091 Parties.—When declaratory relief is sought, all persons may be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration. No declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings. In any proceeding concerning the validity of a county or municipal charter, ordinance, or franchise, such county or municipality shall be made a party and shall be entitled to be heard. If the statute, charter, ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General or the state attorney of the judicial circuit in which the action is pending shall be served with a copy of the complaint and be entitled to be heard.
History.—s. 10, ch. 21820, 1943; s. 1, ch. 59-440; s. 38, ch. 67-254.
Note.—Former s. 87.10.

F.S. 86.091 on Google Scholar

F.S. 86.091 on Casetext

Amendments to 86.091


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 86.091
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 86.091.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All

  1. Tower Radiology Ctr. v. Direct Gen. Ins. Co.

    348 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
    Moreover, we agree with Tower Radiology's argument that, because it was a non-party to the declaratory judgment action, the trial court violated section 86.091, Florida Statutes (2021), when it relied on the final consent judgment to dismiss the instant case. See § 86.091, Fla Stat. (2021) ("When declaratory relief is sought, all persons may be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration. No declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings ...." (emphasis added)); see also Indep. Fire Ins. Co. v. Paulekas , 633 So. 2d 1111, 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ("A declaratory action obtained by an insurer against its insured is not binding on a third-party claimant who was not a party to the declaratory judgment action."); Helt v. Liberty Ins. Corp ., 153 F. Supp. 3d 1388, 1389 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (state court judgment that policy was void ab initio "is not binding upon a third party who acquired rights under the policy prior to the declaratory judgment action but was not joined as a party to that action").
    PAGE 1150

  2. Soto v. Carrollwood Vill. Phase III Homeowners Ass'n

    326 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times
    Soto contends that he reasonably sought to join Carrollwood Village as a lien creditor so that any interest it might have in the property would be decided in one suit. He asserts that Carrollwood Village's interest in the property would be affected by a determination of whether Citi Financial's title is void. See § 86.091, Fla. Stat. (2017) ("When declaratory relief is sought, all persons may be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration. No declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceedings."). Soto argues that he thus had colorable grounds for joining Carrollwood Village and that fees as a sanction should not be awarded against him.
    PAGE 1184

  3. Zinman v. L.A. Fitness Int'l LLC

    Case No. 21-cv-20315-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes (S.D. Fla. Jun. 21, 2021)   Cited 2 times
    In his Motion for Leave to Amend, Plaintiff moves the Court to file a second amended complaint to: "1) to include factual allegations related to the exhaustion of [his] administrative remedies; and 2) to join Palm Beach County as a co-defendant in this matter pursuant to Section 86.091, Florida Statutes[.]" ECF No. [15] at 2; see also ECF No. [15-2]. Defendant, however, objects to Plaintiff's request to file a second amended complaint, arguing that permitting amendment here would be futile. See generally ECF No. [27].
    PAGE 12

  4. Yanes v. OC Food & Beverage LLC.

    300 So. 3d 798 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)
    Section 86.091 provides:
    PAGE 801

  5. Ocean Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jewelry Channel, Inc.

    CASE NO. 9:19-CV-81608-ROSENBERG/REINHART (S.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2020)   Cited 1 times
    Neither Shop LC nor Vaibhav has brought a claim to have § 838.16 declared unconstitutional. Neither Shop LC nor Vaibhav has shown compliance with the procedures to challenge the constitutionality of a Florida statute. See Local Rule 24.1(b) for the Southern District of Florida (citing Fla. Stat. § 86.091). This challenge is not being raised at the correct procedural posture for the Court to be called upon to invalidate a Florida statute.
    PAGE 6

  6. Riggenbach v. Rhodes

    267 So. 3d 551 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 6 times
    We grant the petition and quash the trial court's order denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss, as Respondent failed to comply with the requirement of providing a written medical expert opinion from a specialist in the same specialty as the defendant healthcare provider. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. If the trial court finds that Respondent complied with and continues to comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.071 and section 86.091, Florida Statutes (2017), it shall consider the constitutional issues that Respondent previously raised. Unless the trial court finds the relevant statutes unconstitutional, it shall enter an order dismissing Respondent's complaint with prejudice.
    PAGE 556

  7. T.L. v. F.M.

    289 So. 3d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times
    On March 21, T.L.'s appointed attorney filed a petition for writ of prohibition (or habeas corpus in the event that she was taken into custody) seeking to quash the circuit court's order on three bases: (1) F.M. was not a qualified petitioner under the Marchman Act, so his petition did not properly invoke the circuit court's jurisdiction; (2) the ex parte procedure that the circuit court employed violated T.L.'s right to due process because it did not provide her with a hearing and an opportunity to be heard; and (3) the assessment and stabilization statute as a whole is unconstitutionally vague because it does not provide enough guidance to courts regarding when to hold a predeprivation hearing and when to employ the ex parte procedure. Although the State was not a formal party to this petition, our court ordered it to file a response addressing the constitutional issues raised. See Fla. Carry, Inc. v. Univ. of N. Fla., 133 So.3d 966, 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Makar, J., concurring) (opining that the State should be given an opportunity to be heard when constitutional issues arise); cf. § 86.091, Fla. Stat. (2017) (requiring that the State be served and given an…

  8. Roberts v. Bondi

    Case No.: 8:18-cv-1062-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2018)   Cited 1 times
    True, Bondi, as Attorney General, is "entitled to be heard" when a state statute is challenged as unconstitutional. Fla. Stat. § 86.091 ("If the statute, charter, ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General or the state attorney of the judicial circuit in which the action is pending shall be served with a copy of the complaint and be entitled to be heard."). But that does not mean enforcing this statute is her duty for Ex parte Young purposes. Furthermore, "[i]t has long been recognized that the [Attorney General] is not a necessary party each time the constitutionality of a statute is drawn into question. The [Attorney General] is thus not affirmatively required to intervene every time an entity challenges the constitutionality of a statute." Mallory v. Harkness, 923 F. Supp. 1546, 1553 (S.D. Fla. 1996)(citations omitted), aff'd, 109 F.3d 771 (11th Cir. 1997)(unpublished table decision).
    PAGE 7

  9. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman

    250 So. 3d 91 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times
    We also dismiss the cross-appeal attacking the constitutionality of section 569.23. There is no order from the trial court explicitly addressing the constitutional arguments Grossman asserted below, and we do not construe the rulings of the trial court to implicitly address the constitutionality of the statute. A cross-appeal is intended to "call into question error in the judgment appealed, which, although substantially favorable to the appellee, does not completely accord the relief to which appellee believes itself entitled." Webb Gen. Contracting Inc. v. PDM Hydrostorage, Inc. , 397 So.2d 1058, 1059–60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Below, Grossman was accorded the full relief he sought in the circuit court. Having failed to obtain a ruling on the constitutionality of section 569.23, he should not be permitted to present arguments regarding his constitutional challenge on appeal. Further, we agree with RJ Reynolds's argument that the trial court could not have properly considered the constitutionality of the statute because the notice requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.071 and section 86.091, Florida Statutes (2017), requiring notice to the Attorney General or…

  10. Clarke v. W. Palm Nissan, LLC

    CASE NO. 9:17-CV-81032-ROSENBERG (S.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2018)   Cited 1 times
    The Court also notes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires Plaintiff to notify the Florida attorney general of her claim that certain Florida statutes are unconstitutional. Plaintiff has also failed to comply with Local Rule 24.1(b), which requires Plaintiff to comply with the notice provisions of section 86.091 when bringing a constitutional challenge against a Florida state statute.
    PAGE 7

    Cases from cite.case.law:

    D. RIGGENBACH, M. D. v. A. RHODES,, 267 So. 3d 551 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . and continues to comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.071 and section 86.091 . . .

    R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. GROSSMAN,, 250 So. 3d 91 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . of the statute because the notice requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.071 and section 86.091 . . .

    IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 214 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2017)

    . . . You should use this form to provide notice of a constitutional challenge as required by section 86.091 . . . action, but must be served solely in order to comply with the notice requirements set forth in section 86.091 . . . For further information, see Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure 12.071 and section 86.091, Florida . . .

    a No. RE J. DECKER, III, 212 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 2017)

    . . . a state judicial proceeding for which notice to the State Attorney General is required, see section 86.091 . . .

    PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. EDUARDO J. GARRIDO D. C. P. A., 211 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . during the proceedings below, pursuant to rule 1.071 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and section 86.091 . . .

    SHELTON, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f k a a E. E. E. T. N. A., 203 So. 3d 1003 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . Rule 1.071 was adopted in 2010 and intended to clarify the requirements of section 86.091, Florida Statutes . . . See § 86.091 (“If the statute ... is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Attorney General or the state . . .

    MURPHY, v. CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 166 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

    . . . states that Defendant Ritten is named in the suit as an interested party pursuant to Florida Statute § 86.091 . . . diversity of citizenship between the parties because Ritten is an interested party and Florida Statute § 86.091 . . . However, Florida Statute § 86.091 does not require that Rit-ten be named as a defendant, it simply requires . . . Florida Statute § 86.091 provides in pertinent part: When declaratory relief is sought, all persons may . . . Florida Statute § 86.091 . . . .

    FLORIDA CARRY, INC. v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA,, 133 So. 3d 966 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

    . . . Most often, it was the lack of compliance below with section 86.091, Florida Statutes, which requires . . .

    In L. BLIXSETH, v. L., 484 B.R. 360 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012)

    . . . N.R.S. 86.091. “The interest of each member of a limited-liability company is personal property.” . . .

    CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. IFERGANE, 114 So. 3d 190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

    . . . .” § 86.091, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

    In AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 52 So. 3d 579 (Fla. 2010)

    . . . the Attorney General or the state attorney as a party to the action; however, consistent with section 86.091 . . . statute, charter, ordinance, or franchise file verification with the court of compliance with section 86.091 . . . NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE IS BROUGHT NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 86.091 . . . This form is to be used to provide notice of a constitutional challenge as required by section 86.091 . . . action, but must be served solely in order to comply with the notice requirements set forth in section 86.091 . . .

    L. REINSTEIN, M. D. P. L. v. PEDIATRIC GASTROENTEROLOGY, HEPATOLOGY AND NUTRITION OF FLORIDA, P. A. T. M. D., 25 So. 3d 54 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

    . . . Holley, 59 So.2d 636, 639 (Fla.1952)); see also § 86.091, Fla. . . .

    COHN, v. GRAND CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. PH PH, 26 So. 3d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

    . . . See § 86.091, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . .

    BETHEL, v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 949 So. 2d 219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

    . . . See also § 86.091, Fla. . . .

    UNITED STATES s v. TWO MITSUBISHI PICK- UP TRUCKS VIN VIN s, 396 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.P.R. 2005)

    . . . . § 86.091-35. (See Docket No. 29, Exh. 5, p. 3). . . .

    PAGAN v. SARASOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL BOARD, d b a SMH a d b a L. M. D. M. M. D., 884 So. 2d 257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

    . . . See § 86.091, Fla. . . . However, the trial court clearly did not intend this, and section 86.091 does not permit it. . . .

    MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM HOSPITALS, INC. d b a, 875 So. 2d 797 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

    . . . In support of their position, they rely on section 86.091, Florida Statutes (2003), and dicta in Brown . . . To the extent pertinent, section 86.091 (which is a part of the chapter entitled “Declaratory Judgments . . . Moreover, it is unsupported by any citation to authority other than section 86.091 which, as we have . . . Upon receipt of the complaint pursuant to § 86.091, the [Attorney General] could have filed with the . . . Accordingly, it is equally apparent that the requirements of section 86.091 have been met, and that the . . .

    BROWN v. A. BUTTERWORTH,, 831 So. 2d 683 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

    . . . See § 86.091, Fla. . . .

    STATE a CPA s, M. A. a k a D H. III, v. FLORIDA CONSUMER ACTION NETWORK, AFL- CIO, AFL- CIO, USA, NAACP s Al J., 830 So. 2d 148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

    . . . Although the state may be made a party pursuant to section 86.091, Florida Statutes (1999), allowing . . .

    OLIVE, v. MAAS,, 811 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2002)

    . . . See §§ 16.01(5), 86.091, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

    STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, v. WARREN,, 805 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

    . . . the appeal because the Florida Attorney General was not joined in this action as required by section 86.091 . . .

    FASIG, G. v. FLORIDA SOCIETY OF PATHOLOGISTS,, 769 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

    . . . .” § 86.091, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

    DELTA CASUALTY COMPANY, v. PINNACLE MEDICAL, INC. M M, 721 So. 2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

    . . . See § 86.091, Fla. Stat. (1995); Buckley v. . . .

    DAYS INNS ACQUISITION CORPORATION, v. H. HUTCHINSON,, 707 So. 2d 747 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

    . . . P. 1.210(a); § 86.021, 86.091, Fla. Stat. (1995). . . . .

    ORION INSURANCE COMPANY, v. MAGNETIC IMAGING SYSTEMS I,, 696 So. 2d 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

    . . . See § 86.091, Fla.Stat. (1995); Buckley v. . . .

    K. MALLORY, v. F. HARKNESS, Jr., 923 F. Supp. 1546 (S.D. Fla. 1996)

    . . . The motion to intervene was based on § 86.091, Fla.Stat. which requires the Attorney General to be served . . . State of Florida (“AG”) intervened to defend the constitutionality of the challenged statute under § 86.091 . . . The AG intervened in this matter pursuant to Florida Statute § 86.091 which states that the AG “shall . . . The Court, to the contrary, finds intervention by the AG under § 86.091 to be discretionary. . . . Upon receipt of the complaint pursuant to § 86.091, the AG could have filed with the Court a notice of . . .

    J. C. W. H. a v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY,, 668 So. 2d 693 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

    . . . Education, which has its headquarters in Tallahassee, was served and made a party pursuant to section 86.091 . . .

    STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, v. W. COX M., 627 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

    . . . See § 86.091, Fla. Stat. (1991). . . .

    STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, v. E. GLASSER, K. C. E. M., 622 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

    . . . Pursuant to section 86.091, Florida Statutes (1989), the trial court allowed the attorney general to . . . interest was sufficient to create a bona fide and practical need for declaration pursuant to section 86.091 . . . Pursuant to section 86.091, the attorney general participated in the final hearing and strenuously defended . . . The specific terms of section 86.091 provide that the declaration will not prejudice the rights of any . . .

    JACOBS GOODMAN, P. A. v. McLIN, BURNSED, MORRISON, JOHNSON ROBUCK, P. A., 582 So. 2d 98 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

    . . . Section 86.091, Fla.Stat. (1989). . . .

    BUCKLEY, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a, 559 So. 2d 310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

    . . . See, Section 86.091, Florida Statutes, which provides in part: ... . . .

    SIMS v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,, 862 F.2d 1449 (11th Cir. 1989)

    . . . . § 86.091 (1987) requires the plaintiff in a suit in state court that challenges the constitutionality . . .

    NEWS AND SUN- SENTINEL COMPANY, a d b a v. O. COX, H. a C., 702 F. Supp. 891 (S.D. Fla. 1988)

    . . . Florida, pursuant to Rule 9 B, Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida and Fla.Stat. sec. 86.091 . . . for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Memorandum of Law, 700 F.Supp. 30 (S.D.Fla.1988). .Fla.Stat. sec. 86.091 . . .

    CITY OF HAINES CITY, v. ALLEN,, 509 So. 2d 982 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

    . . . Section 86.091, Fla. Stat. (1986). . . .

    NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, v. M. THOMAS, ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY, v. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,, 805 F.2d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1986)

    . . . . §§ 86.088-21, 86.091-21 (1985).] . . .

    I. A. DURBIN, INC. a D. v. JEFFERSON NATIONAL BANK, a AIA A a P. A., 793 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1986)

    . . . . § 86.091 (West Supp.1986) does not require joinder of the Attorney General as a necessary party in . . .

    E. WYMBS R. v. REPUBLICAN STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF FLORIDA,, 719 F.2d 1072 (11th Cir. 1983)

    . . . . § 86.091 requires that “[if a state] statute, charter, ordinance or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional . . .

    KENDRICK, v. EVERHEART a k a, 390 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1980)

    . . . Statutes, the state, acting through the Attorney General, intervened in the case pursuant to section 86.091 . . . not the father of the two minor children whose birth certificates named him as their father. .Section 86.091 . . .

    LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL v. GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION AUTHORITY, 385 So. 2d 716 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

    . . . Section 86.091, Florida Statutes (1977), provides in part: Parties. — When declaratory relief is sought . . .

    SANCHEZ v. H. PINGREE,, 494 F. Supp. 68 (S.D. Fla. 1980)

    . . . question as to service of the Attorney General, as required by Local Rule 9 B and Florida Statutes § 86.091 . . .

    CITY OF HIALEAH GARDENS v. DADE COUNTY, 348 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

    . . . See Section 86.091, Florida Statutes (1975). . . .

    L. TORNILLO, Jr. v. MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, a, 287 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1973)

    . . . Pursuant to Florida Statute 86.091, F.S.A., the Attorney General of this State was advised that appellee . . .

    TORNILLO v. MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO., 38 Fla. Supp. 80 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1972)

    . . . Pursuant to §86.091, Florida Statutes, the attorney general was advised that the defendant intended to . . .

    LASKY, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE CO., 37 Fla. Supp. 178 (Broward Cty. Ct. Rec. 1972)

    . . . agreed that the attorney general of Florida should be permitted to appear pursuant to Florida Statute 86.091 . . .

    In APPORTIONMENT LAW SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER REGULAR SESSION, Of, 263 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1972)

    . . . . § 86.091, relating to parties, which holds that no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons . . .

    K. OVERSTREET, O. Jr. v. L. GINSBERG,, 233 So. 2d 184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970)

    . . . statutory authority for costs to be assessed against these defendants under either § 215.03, § 86.081 or § 86.091 . . .

    A. FIELD, C. E. L. R. L. E. v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, a R. E. L. L. B., 227 So. 2d 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

    . . . the court reasoned: “ * * * [Ujnder the provisions of Chapter 86, Florida Statutes [F.S.A.], Section 86.091 . . .

    B. LAZARUS, v. FAIRCLOTH,, 301 F. Supp. 266 (S.D. Fla. 1969)

    . . . Statute § 86.091, F.S.A. . . .

    T. MAYO, W. L. v. NATIONAL TRUCK BROKERS, INC., 220 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1969)

    . . . Section 86.091, F.S.A., relative to serving a copy of the complaint upon the Attorney General or the . . . Therefore, the objects of Sec. 86.091 have been accomplished. . . .

    ORR, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 32 Fla. Supp. 71 (Leon Cty. Cir. Ct. 1969)

    . . . . §86.091, Florida Statutes, provides as follows — Parties — When declaratory relief is sought, all persons . . . officer may be the primary antagonist of a plaintiff who attacks the constitutionality of a statute, §86.091 . . .