ADEC, INC., ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
From the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and oral argument, it is clear as a matter of law (1) that appellants’ two applications to appellee Department of Natural Resources for authorization to erect structures at coastal locations (§ 161.-053(5)(a), Fla.Stat.) were made as required by law; (2) that the application in case number 86-1154 was complete as of May 15, 1985; (3) that the application in case number 86-1155 was complete as of July 11, 1985; (4) that there is no substantial competent evidence supporting any finding that the applications were not complete until November 26, 1985; (5) that the application in neither case was approved or denied by the Department within ninety days of receipt of all requested additional information; and (6) that by virtue of section 120.-60(2), Florida Statutes, both applications are deemed approved. Accordingly, the Department’s final order dated June 6, 1986, denying appellants’ applications, is reversed and set aside and this cause is remanded with instructions to the Department to forthwith issue all documents necessary to evidence said approval and to authorize the erection of said structures.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Design Time, Inc. v. Monco OF Orlando, Inc., 518 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…” Hatcher v. Panama City Nursing Center, Inc., 461 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In addition, where the contract provides for liquidated damages of a deposit, the court may not award damages in excess of that sum. Hall Constr. Co., Inc. v. Beynon, 507 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Brusko v. Circle of Seminole, Inc., 436 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Here, there is nothing to indicate that the agreement which was prepared and required by Moneo was not “mutual, unequivocal and reasonable.” Moneo elected t…
-
State v. Calusa Trace Dev., 571 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…. Under the so-called “deemer” provision of section 120.-60(2), Florida Statutes (1989), if there is no approval or denial of the application within the ninety-day period, the application is deemed approved. Adec, Inc. v. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 507 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). That subsection, however, does not expressly demand or even mention that the approval or denial of the application must be in writing to avoid the operation of the “deemer” provision. § 120.60(2), Fla.Stat. (1989). [*546] Noneth…
-
Fla. Acad. OF Cosm. Surgery, Inc. v. State, 771 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…because of respondent’s failure to comply with the time requirements of section 120.60(1). See State, Department of Transportation v. Calusa Trace Development, Corp., 571 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); ADEC, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 507 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Gulf Coast Home Health Services of Florida, Inc. v. Pingree, 476 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). PETITION GRANTED. ERVIN, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence