GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, APPELLEE; FLORIDA CITIES WATER COMPANY ET AL. , APPELLANTS, V. FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, APPELLEE; FLORIDA WATERWORKS ASSOCIATION ET AL. , APPELLANTS, V. FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by water utilities challenging an administrative hearing officer's invalidation of two proposed PSC rules on the ground that the utilities prevailed below and therefore lack standing to appeal. The court held that even though the utilities sought review of unfavorable rulings on other constitutional and statutory arguments, they cannot appeal a judgment wholly in their favor.
Appellants lack standing to appeal because they prevailed wholly in their favor at the administrative hearing. The hearing officer's order is dispositive solely on the ground of inadequate economic impact statement, and the officer's pronouncements on other statutory and constitutional issues are dicta upon which no claim of res judicata or collateral estoppel could lie.
[1] A party who wholly prevails in a proceeding cannot appeal the resulting order because they are not aggrieved.
[2] A party's appeal will be dismissed when they have wholly prevailed in the lower tribunal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is a long standing rule that a judgment or decree wholly in favor of a party may not be appealed by him, for he is not aggrieved thereby.”
Establishes the foundational principle that a prevailing party lacks standing to appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Waterworks Association and other water and sewer utilities challenged two proposed rules of the Public Service Commission. A hearing offic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Invalid Exercise Of Delegated Legislative Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, the Florida Waterworks Association and other water and sewer utilities, seek review of an order of a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration (DOAH), holding that two proposed rules of the Public Service Commission (PSC) constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because of an inadequate economic impact statement.
By motion to dismiss the notice of appeal, PSC argues that the issues presented by this appeal are moot because the two proposed rules have been withdrawn by PSC pursuant to the mandates of Section 120.-54(4)(c), Florida Statutes.1 In their response Appellants argue that, although they prevailed on the ground of the inadequacy of the economic impact statement, review of the hearing officer’s adverse rulings on their other statutory and constitutional arguments remains necessary. Appellants’ express concern and reason for seeking review is that, if PSC reproposes the same rules with a revised economic impact statement, they may be precluded from relitigating these other statutory and constitutional arguments due to the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
It is a long standing rule that a judgment or decree wholly in favor of a party may not be appealed by him, for he is not aggrieved thereby. North Shore Bank v. Surfside, 72 So. 2d 659 (Fla.1954). In such an instance the appeal will be dismissed. Witt v. Baars (1895) 36 Fla. 119, 18 So. 330; Credit Industrial Co. v. Mark Chemical Co., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1953). Such is the case here; the hearing officer determined that the inadequacy of the economic impact statement rendered these rules an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Since the Appellants prevailed, they are not aggrieved parties. Thus, their appeal must be dismissed.
We are not unmindful of Appellants’ concern that the hearing officer’s order may constitute res judicata or collateral estoppel in any future rulemaking proceeding regarding the same or similar subject matter. This concern, however, is unwarranted. The strict holding of the subject order is that the inadequate economic impact statement invalidates the proposed rules. It is solely dispositive of the case. The hearing officer’s pronouncements on the other statutory and constitutional issues are thus immaterial to the decision and are dicta upon which no claim of res judicata or collateral estoppel could lie.
PSC’s Motion to Dismiss Notice of Appeal is hereby granted.
ERVIN, SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. . “The hearing officer may declare the proposed rule wholly or partly invalid. The proposed rule or provision of proposed rule de-dared invalid shall be withdrawn from the committee by the adopting agency and shall not be adopted."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Wright, 439 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ment, thereby obviating consideration of his ruling on the statutory authority for the rule. See Division of Workers’ Compensation v. McKee, 413 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); General Development Utilities Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 385 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). For this Court gratuitously to consider and rule upon the merits of the department’s authority in promulgating the rule would be to resolve that issue without the benefit of the economic impact statement we deem essential for c…
-
Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp. & Dep't of Env't Prot., 700 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…te review. See Katz v. Red Top Sedan Serv., Inc., 136 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Res judicata and collateral estoppel concerns were addressed in this context in General Dev. Utilities, Inc. v. Florida Pub. Service Comm’n, Div. of Admin. Hearings, 385 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Although in that case, which involved rule-making, the court found [*116] that the appellants were not' aggrieved parties and dismissed the appeal, the court did note that the hearing officer’s findings on certain statutory and…
-
Fla. Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Fla. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n & Katie M. Swango, 123 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (declining to examine an administrative law judge’s rationale for a ruling at the behest of the party in whose favor the administrative law judge ruled); Gen. Dev. Utils., Inc. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, Div. of Admin. Hearings, 385 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (“It is a long standing rule that a judgment or decree wholly in favor of a party may not be appealed by him, for he is not aggrieved thereby.”). DISMISSED. BENTON, C.J., THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur. . See ch.2012-30,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N. Shore Bank v. Town of Surfside, 72 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1954)
- Rivas v. Prof'l Prot. & Investigations Agency, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Witt v. Baars, 36 Fla. 119 (Fla. 1895)
- Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., Inc., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1953)