Marvin Castellanos, Petitioner v. Next Door Company, Respondents — Polston, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Polston dissents, arguing that the majority improperly rewrote the 2009 amendment to section 440.34 to create a non‑existent conclusive presumption of reasonableness and misapplied the established facial‑challenge standard. He maintains that the statute can be constitutionally applied in at least some circumstances and therefore should be upheld. The opinion also includes a separate dissent by Justice Canady and a concurrence by Justice Lewis, both addressing the same statutory provision.