FLORIDA OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, PETITIONER; DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION ET AL., APPELLEE, V. BOARD OF OPTICIANRY ET AL., RESPONDENT
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 Optometric Association appeals the Board of Opticianry's declaratory statement ruling that addressed hypothetical circumstances affecting association members. The court reversed the ruling, finding that the associations lacked standing to petition for a declaratory statement on behalf of their individual members.
The associations were not proper parties to petition for the declaratory statement because they failed to establish that the rule had potential impact on the associations' interests as entities, and individual members who might be affected were not parties to the petition. Trade associations cannot obtain declaratory statements on behalf of their individual members under the applicable statute and administrative rule.
[1] An association may not petition for a declaratory statement on behalf of its individual members if the association itself does not allege or establish that the rule has a…
[2] A petition for a declaratory statement requires the petitioner to demonstrate a direct interest in the rule's applicability to specific circumstances, not merely hypothet…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The associations were not proper parties to petition for the declaratory statement in the circumstances of this case”
Establishes the core holding that the associations lacked standing to seek the declaratory statement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo associations, The Society of Ophthalmic Dispensers and Optical Dispensers of North Florida, petitioned the Board of Opticianry for a declaratory s…
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 Petition For Declaratory Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
This is an appeal from appellee Board’s § 120.565 declaratory statement in response to a question propounded by two petitioning associations, “The Society of Ophthalmic Dispensers” and “Optical Dispensers of North Florida.” We find that the associations were not proper parties to petition for the declaratory statement in the circumstances of this case and reverse the order appealed.
The associations requested a declaratory statement as to the applicability of an agency rule upon a hypothetical set of circumstances which allegedly existed as to some association members. However, they did not establish or allege that the rule had any potential impact upon the associations’ interests as entities, or in any way applied to a particular set of circumstances involving the associations themselves. The individual association members who may be affected by the rule were not parties to the petition and the associations were not proper parties, as contemplated by § 120.565 and Rule 28-4.05, Florida Administrative Code, to obtain a declaratory statement on behalf of their individual members.1 Cf., Depart ment of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Florida Home Builders Association v. Florida Building Trades Council, 392 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Florida Department of Education v. Florida Education Association/United AFT-AFL-CIO, 378 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
The order appealed is reversed.
SHIVERS, J., and WILLIAM C. OWEN, Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur. . We note, without deciding, that even if the associations had the requisite interest for § 120.565 purposes, the case would then present an issue as to these unincorporated associations’ legal capacity to institute such proceedings. See Phillips & Co. v. Hall, 99 Fla. 1206, 128 So. 635 (1930); cf., Walton-Okaloosa-Santa Rosa Medical Society v. Spires, 153 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed'n of Mobile Home Owners of Fla., Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 479 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…District Court of Appeal in Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 417 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The Division argues that Florida Optometric Association v. Department of Professional Regulation, 399 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), is the only case in point as to requirements for declaratory statements under section 120.565. Florida Optometric, which involved a request by certain associations to the Department of Professional Regulation for a declaratory s…
-
State v. Univ. OF Fla., 531 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…he petition on behalf of itself, not its employees. The allegations of substantial interest were sufficient to show that the order had an impact upon it as an entity. See Florida Optometric Association, Inc. v. Department of Professional Regulation, 399 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Because county extension agents are, under section 240.505(3), Florida Statutes, staff members of the university, appellee asserted a legal interest in showing that as the employer of the agents, it had a statutory duty under se…
Authorities Cited
- Phillips v. Hall, 99 Fla. 1206 (Fla. 1930)
- The Walton-Okaloosa-Santa Rosa Med. Soc'y v. Spires, 153 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Fla. Dep't OF Educ. v. Florida Education Association/United, 378 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec. v. Fla. Home Builders Ass'n, 392 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)