HomeMy WebLinkAbout051451~42~
IISIE GAI~IA PII2E2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
na ~ c~rr cnuKr o~ ~ i~
J[AICIAL CII~TIIT IN AI~D FC)R ST.
I~IE C~NM~ Fl~RIOA
CAS~E NU. 79-227 CA
CITY OF FT. PIII~, et al. , ORDII2 QN I~JTIQ~1 ~ DI~JP PARTIES
Defendants.
/
~-IIS CAUSE having ooa~ before me t~oa1 defendants, City of Ft. Pierce,
Ft. Pierce Police Department, A~et~a Casualty & S~rety C~a~any, William
St~vens and David Erhardts', Motion t~ Drop Parties, and the Court having heard
arg~mrent of oauLSel and being fully advised in the premises, it is
ORD~ ArID ADOi~~
1. ZlZe ~otuLSel for the plaintiff and the City of Fbrt Pierve
having agreed that the Fort Pieroe Aolice Department is not a legal
entity but a departinent of the City of Ft. Pieroe, the m~tion tA drop
the Fort Pieroe Pelive Department bevomes moot.
2. Tfie m4tion to dra~ the irYiividual defer~dants, William St~even.s,
and David Erhardt, is denied. Zhe Court specifically foiuxi that Chapter
8Q~271, to the extent it retroactively eliminates the plaintiff's vested
right t,o sue the isidividual police offivers, is urioorLStitutiorlal. Zlie
Court relies on State of Florida, Depar#~rent of Transportation v. Daniel
Aobert Kr~owles anci Ky Knowles ar~d Imbert GlPn Gregg, 2r~d District, Case
No. 8016, Oct~o~ber 3, 1980.
L~~ this 19th day of Januaxy, 1981.
~
AT
Copies furnished to:
J~nes E. Z'ho[[Qson, Esq.
Roger L. Blackburn, Fsq.
~erett J. Van Gaasbeck, Esq.
St1SdI1 WYI1Tlf-. F.SQ -
1 ~
51442~
~.~ni~ 2 ~ r;,~'4 ~~~ y ~
:~c~t «r ~_c~-.: u
ST.IU~~E cOUrl r.F~a.
ROGER ~01 i RA5
CLERK ClP,~:~:i Ct1J"T ~
~_ ..~ _ ~,.. (1,,~
Z! ~
~~1K 34`7 r~,E 5~.1
~
~ __: ~ _
~~~~~~-~~~=~.,<:~
:~
`~.~: ~~ -