CopyCited 12 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11316, 1997 WL 212228
...PRIDE may, however, sell
agricultural goods to private entities. §
946.515(3). In 1992,
the Florida legislature amended the statute creating PRIDE so as to
provide that ""PRIDE' is deemed to be a corporation primarily
acting as an instrumentality of the state." §
946.5026....
...es that as a matter of
law PRIDE is an instrumentality of the state. It is true that, as
originally authorized, PRIDE was to operate "independently." In
1992, however, the Florida Legislature enacted § 946.5026,
specifically providing that PRIDE "is deemed to be a corporation
primarily acting as an instrumentality of the state." At least one
Florida state court has held that § 946.5026 was enacted "merely to
clarify and make entirely free from any doubt PRIDE's [previously]
existing status...." PRIDE v....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 12534, 1994 WL 704790
...We agree with PRIDE that this ruling is not supported by the relevant statutory provisions and case law. The definition of “state agency” in section
768.28 includes “corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities of the state.” §
768.28(2), Fla.Stat. In 1992, the Legislature enacted section
946.5026, Florida Statutes, 2 specifically providing that PRIDE “is deemed to be a corporation primarily acting as an instrumentality of the state” and that “[t]he provisions of s.
768.28 shall be applicable” to it. In denying sovereign immunity status to PRIDE in the instant case, the trial court implicitly ruled that section
946.5026 should be treated as a substantive change to existing law and given prospective effect only. PRIDE argues that rather than changing the law, section
946.5026 expressly clarified PRIDE’s previously existing status under the law....
...1st DCA 1985); Seaboard Coast Line R.R. v. O’Connor,
229 So.2d 663, 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), cert. denied,
237 So.2d 754 (Fla.1970). Applying the foregoing rule of construction to the statutory scheme that establishes and regulates PRIDE, we conclude that the enactment of section
946.5026 was merely intended to clarify and make entirely free from any doubt PRIDE’s existing status as an instrumentality of the state. The statutory scheme governing PRIDE that was in effect prior to the enactment of section
946.5026 contained numerous provisions for extensive governmental control over PRIDE’s day-to-day operations sufficient for it to constitute an instrumentality of the state consistent with the rationale of our holding in Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc....
...See Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics, Inc.,
478 So.2d 77. 3 Furthermore, as PRIDE points out, because these statutory provisions existed long before the 1992 official legislative confirmation of PRIDE’s status for purposes of section
768.28, the enactment of section
946.5026 manifested only legislative intent to statutorily recognize PRIDE’s existing status and thereby clarify the state of the law....
