Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Geter v. City of Sanford
No. 01-CA-904-16-L (18th Jud. Cir. Fla. Seminole County, Apr. 4, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53857
Description
Tenants Seek to Enforce “Sunshine Law” Right to Attend Housing Authority and City Commission Meetings
Abstract
Plaintiff two public housing tenants are suing defendant city,
mayor, and housing authority to secure and enforce tenants’
right to attend and participate in housing authority board meetings
and city commission meetings under the state’s government in
sunshine law. Amid allegations of housing authority misconduct, the
city commission approved a signed agreement providing for the
resignation of four housing authority board members and the
appointment of an interim director of city’s choice. Tenants
allege that city and housing authority violated the sunshine law by
engaging in a series of secret discussions. The secret discussions
resulted in a “back-room illegal agreement” that
permitted housing authority board members to remain as board
members in the face of impending criminal investigations of housing
authority. Tenants seek declaratory relief and attorney fees and
costs. They claim that the operation of the sunshine law is crucial
to their efforts to remedy corrupt conditions at the housing
authority. Tenants also moved to disqualify city’s attorneys
from participating as counsel; tenants allege that the attorneys
have a conflict of interest from their past or present
representation of housing authority in the same or substantially
related matters and from their being material witnesses in
tenants’ action.
