Opinion
No. 84-98.
February 21, 1985. Rehearing Denied March 26, 1985.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Emerson R. Thompson, Jr., Judge.
Charles Evans Davis, of Fishback, Davis, Dominick, Bennett, Foster, Owens Watts, Orlando, for appellant.
C. Reed Guthridge, of Van Den Berg, Gay, Burke, Wilson Arkin, P.A., Orlando, for appellee Greater Orlando Aviation Authority.
Christopher A. Detzel and Eli H. Subin, of Subin, Shams, Rosenbluth Moran, P.A., Orlando, for appellee City of Orlando.
Gregory A. Presnell and Craig P. Niedenthal, of Akerman, Senterfitt Eidson, Orlando, for appellee Airlines.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, JR., JJ., concur.
SHARP, J., concurs in part; dissents in part.
I agree that the trial court properly dismissed Counts I and IV of the complaint because appellant failed to sufficiently allege standing as a taxpayer to challenge the airline agreements involved in this case, and appellant failed to allege a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship in Count II.
Department of Revenue v. Markham, 396 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1981); Compare Fornes v. North Broward Hospital District, 455 So.2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) with Godheim v. City of Tampa, 426 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
I think appellant sufficiently pleaded grounds to challenge the agreements under the Sunshine Law in Count III. § 286.011, Fla. Stat. (1983). The Aviation Authority is a public body to which the Sunshine Law appears applicable. § 286.011(1); Wood v. Marston, 442 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1983); Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1974). No special standing allegations are necessary for a citizen to bring a Sunshine Law case against a public body. See, e.g., Neu v. Miami Herald Publishing Company, 462 So.2d 821 (Fla. 1985). It was, therefore, erroneous to dispose of this count upon challenge by a motion to dismiss.