← Case library
FL Supreme CourtApril 18, 2019Decision of the Fifth District Approved (prior opinion withdrawn on recall of mandate)↗ Precedent Departure

Orange County, Florida v. Singh

Case No. SC18-79

The Florida Supreme Court recalled its own mandate, withdrew its January 4, 2019 opinion, and substituted a new opinion reaching the opposite result. It held that section 97.0115, Florida Statutes, expressly preempts to the State all matters in chapters 97-105, so an Orange County charter amendment mandating nonpartisan elections for county constitutional officers is both preempted by and in direct conflict with the Florida Election Code, and is therefore invalid.

Key facts

  • Orange County adopted a charter amendment mandating nonpartisan elections for county constitutional officers, eliminating party affiliation references on ballots.
  • Singh challenged the charter amendment as preempted by and in conflict with the Florida Election Code.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

Notable both for its substantive preemption holding and for the unusual procedural posture: the Court granted a motion to recall its own mandate under section 43.44, Florida Statutes, and rule 2.205(b)(5), withdrew a… — full analysis with a trial

Best value · free

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
Start my free 30-day trial → No credit card required
👀 Take a quick tour of the site → 60 seconds · click a real case · no login

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.