Seybourn Harris Lynne

“ Without considering whether a case may be suitable for abstention under both the Pullman and Burford doctrines, we find Burford -type abstention improper in the present case. Although the challenged statutes are part of a large and perhaps complex regulatory scheme - i.e., the Florida Banking Code - it must be remembered that appellants focus their attack upon a single statute [28] whose possible invalidation could scarcely be expected to disrupt Florida's entire system of banking regulation. ”

“ Thus, usually at issue in Burford -type cases are state regulatory matters [20] such as regulation of natural resources, [21] education, [22] or eminent domain, [23] where a paramount state interest is apparent, [24] where the history of state judicial experience in the area indicates special reliability, [25] or, even absent an established regulatory scheme, where the intrusion of federal adjudication might handicap state government. [26] Unlike Pullman - type abstention, Burford -type abstention requires neither the presence of a state issue nor unclarity in pertinent state law. ”

“ Appellee contends that Fla.Const. art. I, § 2 also affords appellants adequate state constitutional protection as the equivalent of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, while appellants counter that such provision applies only to natural persons. In view of our holding, we need not confront this issue.↑ Although appellants have scrupulously avoided raising state constitutional issues, abstention, where proper, is not to be avoided by skillful casting of a plaintiff's complaint. By its nature, the abstention issue is raised either by a defendant or by the court sua sponte. ”