In Lane v. Chiles, 698 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1997), individuals challenged in the circuit court a fishing "net ban" amendment that previously had been adopted through an initiative petition. See id. at 262. In addition to procedural and substantive challenges, the individuals challenged the sufficiency of the ballot summary. See id. After the trial court granted summary judgment, upheld constitutionality of the amendment, and found that the time to challenge the ballot summary had passed, this Court accepted pass-through review of the trial court's order. See id. With regard to the challenge to the sufficiency of the ballot summary, the Court stated in full: We find this claim to be untimely and without merit. In addition to the fact that this Court specifically approved the ballot summary, the general rule is that a challenge to the form of a proposed amendment must be made before the amendment is adopted. Sylvester v. Tindall, 154 Fla. 663, 18 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1944). Lane filed this challenge on June 20, 1995, eight months after the amendment was adopted by a vote of the people and less than two weeks before the amendment was to be effective on July 1, 1995. Id. at 265.