14 So. 3d 1010 (2009) VALE v. SHOCKLEY. No. 1D08-3462. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. August 26, 2009. Decision without published opinion Affirmed.
The issue for disposition in this case is whether Respondent has implemented an agency statement that meets the definition of a rule, but which has not been adopted pursuant to section 120.54, Florida Statutes.Petitioner failed to prove that the alleged unadopted rule was an agency statement of general applicability.
The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.530(47)(b) of the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department"), referred to as the "narrative nutrient rule," is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and whether certain proposed rules of the Department, which amend Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-302, entitled “Surface Water Quality Standards” and 62-303, entitled “Identification of Impaired Surface Waters,” are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.Petitioners failed to prove the DEP's narrative nutrient rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. DEP proved the proposed changes to chapters 62-302 & 62-303 were not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Petitioners failed to prove the DEP's narrative nutrient rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. DEP proved the proposed changes to chapters 62-302 & 62-303 were not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Action dated June 19, 1996, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.Licensee did not ask for identification before alcoholic beverage was served to underage person. Recommend $1000 fine and seven days suspension.
Whether Respondent violated Section 112.3148(4), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Mayor had no authority to accept free legal services on behalf of city.
