No. 91,055 | Fla. | Apr 8, 1999
We have for review Miami Tiresoles, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue, 695 So. 2d 851" date_filed="1997-06-18" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." case_name="Miami Tiresoles, Inc. v. State">695 So.2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), in which the Third District certified the following question as one of great public importance:
WHETHER DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KUHNLEIN, 646 So. 2d 717" date_filed="1994-11-30" court="Fla." case_name="Department of Revenue v. Kuhnlein">646 So.2d 717 (Fla.1994), CERT. DENIED, 515 S.Ct. [U.S.] 1158, 115 S. Ct. 2608" date_filed="1995-06-26" court="SCOTUS" case_name="United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.">115 S.Ct. 2608, 132 L. Ed. 2d 853" date_filed="1995-06-26" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Adams v. Dickinson">132 L.Ed.2d 853 (1995), OVERRULED OR RECEDED FROM STATE EX RED. VICTOR CHEMICAL WORKS V. GAY, 74 So. 2d 560" date_filed="1954-07-16" court="Fla." case_name="State Ex Rel. Victor Chemical Works v. Gay">74 So.2d 560 (Fla.1954)?
Id. at 851. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We recently answered a substantially similar question in the negative. See Department of Revenue v. Nemeth, 733 So. 2d 970" date_filed="1999-04-08" court="Fla." case_name="Department of Revenue v. Nemeth">733 So.2d 970 (Fla.1999). Accordingly, on the authority of Nemeth, we answer the certified question in the negative and remand this case for proceedings consistent with our opinion therein.
It is so ordered.