J.A. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 23, 2000

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2000-06-23

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 2001

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE? WHETHER THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL!;.]”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including J.A. v. State, 788 So. 2d 953 - JA v. State

Relies on Tenet Healthcare Corp. v. Hialeah-Miami Springs Medical Fund · J.P. v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-06-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1J.A. appeals the trial court’s adjudications of delinquency for grand theft and for violating Tampa’s juvenile curfew ordinance. See Tampa, Fla., Code § 14-26(c) (1996). We affirm the adjudication of delinquency for grand theft without discussion. We reject J.A.’s contention that the ordinance is unconstitutional and affirm under the authority of J.P. v. State, 775 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and State v. T.M., 761 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

¶2We again certify the following questions of great public importance:

WHAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY MUST A COURT APPLY WHEN REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF *391A JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE?

WHETHER THE TAMPA JUVENILE CURFEW ORDINANCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL?

¶3Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ„ Concur.