Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...at 1308 (construing section 2 and rejecting the proposition that an employment contract is not a “contract evidencing a transaction involving interstate commerce”). Accordingly, the terms of the Convention Act do not provide that we read section 1 into section 202.12 Plaintiffs cite committee testimony in the legislative history in the hope of demonstrating that Congress intended section 202 of the Convention Act to 12 Plaintiffs emphasize that the heading to Section 1...

...arly copyrightable under the present copyright laws under the specified class of drawings or plastic works of scientific or technical nature. (17 U.S.C.A. § 5(i).) This is recognized by the regulations promulgated by the Copyright Office (37 C.F.R. § 202.12(a),) in which architectural plans are referred to as copyrightable under the classification just mentioned; and the Copyright Office has, in fact, made many registrations of copyright claims of architectural plans....

...While the publisher of a CEN gives up some of the autonomy of an ordinary com *1470 mercial newspaper, it receives some benefits. DOD regulations provide that a CEN can be distributed either through DOD’s official channels or directly to the intended readership. 32 C.F.R. § 202.12 (a)....

...e and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned." Obviously, to fit within subsection 90.202(12), accurate records or other sources must exist which establish the judicially-noticed fact. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 202.12, at 52 (West 1996 Ed.)....

...the statute. "[T]o fit within subsection 90.202(12), accurate records or other sources must exist which establish the judicially-noticed fact." Maradie v. Maradie, 680 So.2d 538, 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (citing Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 202.12, at 52 (West 1996 Ed.))....

...The Department, to whom the satellite company forwarded Appellants' refund request, denied the request. Approximately 190 days later, Appellants filed suit against Appellee. In their amended class action complaint, Appellants alleged that the Communications Services Tax statute, section 202.12, Florida Statutes, was facially unconstitutional under the United States Commerce Clause to the extent that it imposes a sales tax on satellite television service, an out-of-state service, in an amount greater than that imposed on cable television service, an in-state *58 service....

...agricultural products or byproducts, and affirming the judgment declaring the law unconstitutional because the exemption facially discriminated against foreign commerce). Accordingly, we REVERSE the Final Judgment and REMAND the case for further proceedings. VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 202.12 is entitled "Sales of communications services" and provides in part: The Legislature finds that every person who engages in the business of selling communications services at retail in this state is exercising a taxable privilege....

...ollywood Unsafe Structures and Housing Appeals Board (the Board). The dismissal was based on the trial court's finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Reed failed to exhaust legal and administrative remedies available to him under Section 202.12 of the South Florida Building Code. We affirm the dismissal of the suit insofar as it sought injunctive relief; however, we remand the cause with directions to the trial court to treat Reed's suit as one seeking certiorari review of the Board's action. Section 202.12 of the South Florida Building Code provides that "[a]ny person aggrieved by a decision of the Unsafe Structures Board may seek judicial review of that decision in accordance with the Florida Appellate Rules." Florida Rules of Appellate...

...nd of the taxes paid pursuant to the provision.” DIRECTV, Inc., 40 Fla. L. Weekly at D1375. Enacted in 2001, the Communications Services Tax (CST) imposed a 6.8 percent tax rate on cable service and a 10.8 percent tax rate on satellite service. § 202.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). Presently, cable service is taxed at 4.92 percent and satellite is taxed at 9.07 percent. § 202.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). It is this difference, according to the satellite companies, that violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The trial court disagreed, and “[i]n ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment,” found that section 202.12(1), Florida Statutes, does not violate the Commerce Clause “because it does not benefit in-state economic interests or similarly situated entities.” Id. The satellite companies appealed the decision to the First District,...

...However, the court did not find that the statute was discriminatory in its purpose. Id. at D1378-79. Now before this Court, Appellants Florida Department of Revenue and the Florida Cable Telecommunications Association, Inc. (FCTA) argue that section 202.12(1) of the CST does not discriminate in its effect or its purpose and the satellite companies are not entitled to a refund for the taxes paid....

...statute only if a challenger has shown its invalidity “beyond reasonable doubt.” Crist v. Fla. Ass’n of Criminal Def. Lawyers, Inc., 978 So. 2d 134, 139 (Fla. 2008). ANALYSIS The statute at issue in this case, section 202.12(1) of the Communications Services Tax Simplification Law, states in relevant part: The Legislature finds that every person who engages in the business of selling communications services at retail in this state is exercising a taxable privilege....

...when sold at retail, computed on each taxable sale for the purpose of remitting the tax due. . . . .... (c) At the rate of 10.8 percent on the retail sales price of any direct-to-home satellite service received in this state. § 202.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). The satellite companies contend that section 202.12(1) is facially unconstitutional....

...Consequently, Appellees are not entitled to a refund of the taxes paid pursuant to the statute. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the First District’s decision holding that the statute is invalid. Section 202.12(1) is not discriminatory in either its purpose or its effect and therefore does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. It is so ordered. LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, and CANADY, JJ., concur. POLSTON, J., concurs in r...

...mmunications Services Tax Simplification Law violated the Commerce Clause in Directv, Inc. v. Florida Department of Revenue, 218 So. 3d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (Directv I). Thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court reversed our opinion and found that section 202.12(1), Florida Statutes, did not violate the Commerce Clause in Florida Department of Revenue v....

...Communications Services Tax Simplification Law violated the Commerce Clause in Directv, Inc. v. Florida Department of Revenue, 218 So. 3d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (Directv I). Thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court reversed our opinion and found that section 202.12(1), Florida Statutes, did not violate the Commerce Clause in Florida Department of Revenue v....

the United States. 9 U.S.C. § 202. 12 and Ninth Circuits in holding

...Tresh, and Zachary T. Atkins of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, Atlanta, GA, pro hac vice; David Konuch, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Cable Telecommunications Association. ROBERTS, J. This appeal arises from a final summary judgment finding that section 202.12(1), Florida Statutes, which imposes a higher tax rate on satellite services than on cable services, is constitutional....

...3 based networks. However, in 2001, the Florida Legislature passed the Communications Services Tax Simplification Law (“the CST”), which imposed a differential tax rate for cable and satellite services. § 202.12(1), Fla. Stat. (2001) (taxing cable service at 6.8 percent and satellite service at 10.8 percent). Currently, cable service is taxed at a rate of 6.65 percent, and satellite service is taxed at a rate of 10.8 percent. § 202.12(1), Fla....

...holding the sales tax provision in the CST unconstitutional, a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the provision, and a refund of the taxes paid pursuant to the provision.1 In ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that section 202.12(1), Florida Statutes, does not violate the Commerce Clause because it does not benefit in-state economic interests or similarly-situated entities. III....

...The court agreed, finding that “reviewing courts must consider the actual effects of statutes, rather than isolated technicalities.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Here, cable and satellite services are taxed at different rates under section 202.12(1) of the CST, which results in a four-percent differential. See § 202.12(1), Fla....

...in a uniform, consistent, and nondiscriminatory manner. § 202.105, Fla. Stat., (2001). There is nothing in the language of the chapter implementing the CST that shows a discriminatory purpose. The specific statutory section at issue, section 202.12, Florida Statutes, was first enacted on October 1, 2001....

...t. The fact must then be established by the introduction of evidence. The burden is upon the party requesting judicial notice to supply the court with the records or other information that show the accuracy of the fact.” Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 202.12 (footnote omitted)....

Fla. Stat., for the short title of the act. 2 Section 202.12, Fla. Stat. 3 Section 202.105(1), Fla. Stat