Liebman v. City of Miami
City residents and an unsuccessful-bid-affiliated non-resident sued the City of Miami claiming lease amendments with Flagstone for a Watson Island development violated the City Charter. The Third DCA affirmed dismissal for lack of standing, holding the November 2016 amendment to Charter section 52(C) granting residents standing was a substantive change that could not be applied retroactively to pre-amendment conduct, and that the non-resident's allegation that he 'would consider' bidding on a future RFP was too speculative to show special injury.
Key facts
- City residents and a non-resident who was affiliated with an unsuccessful bid sued the City of Miami, alleging that lease amendments with Flagstone for a Watson Island development violated the City Charter.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, and the residents and non-resident appealed.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion gives practitioners a reusable framework for retroactivity analysis of standing-conferring enactments: eliminating a standing defense is substantive, not merely 'remedial,' even where the provision is titled… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.