Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

Salinas v. Mason627 So. 2d 525 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) · DCA92-04118

Court
District Court of Appeal
Decided
1993-10-15
Law cited
§ 39.01(2)
On CourtListener
HALL, Judge,

concurring.

Even though I am concerned with the potential for future enactment of further retroactive legislation dealing with statutes of limitation, I must agree with the majority that our decision is controlled by Roof v. *526Wiley, wherein we held that a party holds no vested right in the termination of a cause of action because of the running of the statute of limitation, and the legislature can revive an expired cause of action without the violation of a constitutional right. It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court of Virginia reached the exact opposite decision in a well-reasoned opinion in Starnes v. Cayouette, 244 Va. 202, 419 S.E.2d 669 (1992).

Although, the parties have not raised the issue of the definition of abuse, for which section 95.11, Florida Statutes, refers to section 39.01(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, I perceive a possible constitutional problem because the definition of abuse in the Juvenile Justice Act may be vague and overbroad in the context of section 95.11.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.