FFEC-SIX, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 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 Public Service Commission's order granting a water and sewer utility permit was reversed because the Commission failed to inform the applicant of its right to request a hearing under § 120.57 and the applicable procedural requirements, thus denying a clear point of entry into the administrative process.
An administrative agency order is invalid when it fails to provide the applicant with a clear point of entry into the administrative proceeding by not articulating the right to request a hearing or applicable procedural rules.
[1] An administrative agency order fails to provide a clear point of entry into the administrative process when it does not articulate the applicant's right to request a hear…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFFEC-Six, Inc. applied for certificates to operate a water and sewer utility in Lee County, Florida. The Public Service Commission granted the certifi…
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 Clear Point Of Entry cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order entered by the Public Service Commission upon appellant’s application for a water and sewer permit. We find that the Commission has failed to provide a clear point of entry into the administrative process and we therefore reverse the order appealed.
Appellant applied for certificates to operate a water and sewer utility to service a portion of Lee County, Florida; after much deliberation the Commission granted the certificates but authorized only such revenue as would “allow the utility to recover estimated operation and maintenance expenses and depreciation.” The Commission argues on appeal that it was unable to determine a more reasonable rate of return without further information as to appellant’s capital structure, and that appellant should have petitioned for Commission reconsideration whereby such further information could have been presented. However, the Commission order did not indicate that further information was necessary, nor did the order articulate appellant’s right to request a § 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing, or the applicable time limit for such a request, or the applicable procedural rules. The Commission has thereby failed to provide appellant with a clear point of entry into the administrative proceeding, thus rendering the Commission action invalid. See Manosata-88 v. State Department of Environmental Regulation, 417 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sterman v. Florida State University, 414 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sterman v. The Fla. State Univ. Bd. OF Regents, 414 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Manasota-88, Inc. v. State, 417 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)