22 So. 3d 863 (2009) In the interest of D.H., a child, B.F., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Family Services, and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees. No. 2D09-1757. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. December 16, 2009. *864 Jackson S. Flyte, Regional Counsel, Second District, and Jeffrey Sullivan, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Bartow, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David J. Lopez,..

555 So. 2d 940 (1990) Moulton KEANE, M.D., Petitioner, v. Honorable Robert Lance ANDREWS, Respondent. No. 89-3289. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. January 17, 1990. Esther E. Galicia of George, Hartz & Lundeen, P.A., Coral Gables, for petitioner. No response required by respondent. PER CURIAM. The issue presented by the petition for writ of prohibition is whether or not a trial judge is required to disqualify himself where counsel for a litigant before him, as well as severa..

361 So. 2d 184 (1978) COUCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, State of Florida, Respondent, and White Construction Company, Inc., Intervenor. No. KK-100. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. June 16, 1978. Rehearing Denied June 26, 1978. *185 Robert R. Feagin, III, F. Alan Cummings and John Radey of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, for petitioner. H. Reynolds Sampson, Tallahassee, for respondent. John S. Rawls and Elaine N. Duggar, Tallahassee,..

776 So. 2d 1049 (2001) Joan PASZAMANT, etc., et al., Appellant, v. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS, INC., etc., Appellee. No. 5D00-679. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. February 2, 2001. *1050 William G. Osborne of William G. Osborne, P.A., Orlando and Barry N. Greenberg of Mishan, Sloto, Greenberg, Hellinger & Udolf, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. Anthony Deglomine, III and Nichole M. Mooney of Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. PETERSON, J. Th..

The issue for determination in this case is whether proposed rules 62-40.410(3) and 62-40.474, in whole or in part, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2005).1The proposed rules are not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.

Between September 7, 1995, and February 7, 1996, Petitioner The Environmental Trust (ET) and Petitioner Sarasota Environmental Investors, Inc. (SEI) filed 46 individual petitions for administrative hearing. DEP referred the first of these cases, Case Number 95-4606, to the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 19, 1995. In this case, Petitioner ET sought an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, contesting DEP's denial of certain costs from applications for reimbursement of petroleum contamination site cleanup costs submitted pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes. On or about October 6, 1995, Petitioner ET requested that Case Number 95- 4606 be placed in abeyance until all anticipated related petitions for administrative hearing could be filed with DEP and referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consolidation before formal hearing. On October 10, 1995, the undersigned entered an order granting abeyance and requiring Petitioner ET to file a status report in Case Number 95-4606 within forty-five days. The undersigned entered orders continuing abeyance of Case Number 95-4606 on December 4, 1995 and January 12, 1996. On January 24, 1996, DEP referred thirty-seven related cases to the Division of Administrative Hearings: Case Numbers 96-401RU through Case Number 96-437RU. In Count One of these cases, Petitioners sought an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, contesting DEP's denial of certain costs from applications for reimbursement of petroleum contamination site cleanup costs submitted pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes. In Count Two, Petitioners alleged that DEP implemented non-rule policies in violation of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, which resulted in the denial of certain costs from applications for reimbursement of petroleum contamination site cleanup. That same day, DEP filed a motion to consolidate these cases for purposes of final hearing. The undersigned issued a Notice of Hearing and Order of Consolidation on February 5, 1996. This order consolidated the above referenced cases with Case Number 95-4606. It also advised the parties that the consolidated cases would be heard on February 21, 1996. The parties filed a joint motion dated February 8, 1996 requesting that the formal hearing be rescheduled. By order dated February 12, 1996, the undersigned scheduled this matter for hearing on April 22, 1996. On February 28, 1996, DEP referred six related cases to the Division of Administrative Hearings and requested their consolidation: Case Number 96-1004 through Case Number 96-1009. On March 14, 1996, DEP referred the final two related cases to the Division of Administrative Hearings and requested their consolidation: Case Numbers 96-1352 and 96-1353. In these cases, Petitioners ET or SEI seek the same relief as Petitioner ET in Case Number 95-4606 pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. By orders dated March 8, 1996 and March 15, 1996, the undersigned consolidated these cases to proceed under Case Number 95-4606. On April 18, 1996, Petitioner ET dismissed its petition for final hearing in Case Number 96-430RU. Accordingly, the undersigned issued an order closing the file in Case Number 96-430RU on April 19, 1996.DEP adopting nonrule policies in good faith. DEP can apply policy against factoring of invoices and deny markup where contractor services add no value.

At issue in these proceedings is the validity of respondent's proposed rules 9J-5.003(140) and 9J-5.006(6).DCA's rule defining urban sprawl and methodology for evaluating plans to determine whether they discourage urban sprawl found valid.

The issue is whether the Petitioners, The Environmental Trust and Sarasota Environmental Investors, Inc., are entitled to reimbursement of their reasonable and allowable costs of site rehabilitation in accordance with the statutes, rules and written guidelines governing petroleum contamination site cleanup and reimbursement which were in effect at the time the work was performed or the records of activities and expenses were generated.No reimbursement for petroleum cleanup where invoices factored and no markup on contractor services that add no value to clean up project.

Petitioners have challenged proposed rule 17-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C. which designates Lake Powell as an Outstanding Florida Water - Special Water. The issue is whether the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. More specifically, Petitioners claim that the agency has exceeded its statutory authority, has failed to establish a factual predicate for the designation and has prepared an inadequate economic impact statement.Designation of Lake Powell as Outstanding Florida Water-special water meets criteria economic impact statement adequate-proposed rule is valid

Whether Amendments to Rules 17-2.600 and 17-2.710, Florida Administrative Code are invalid by virtue of being an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether the economic impact statement prepared by the Department was adequate.Rule regulating biological waste incineratore held valid.