DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 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 Division of Administrative Hearings appealed an order invalidating portions of two proposed administrative rules. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the challenged rule provisions were arbitrary, granted unbridled discretion to hearing officers, or constituted an invalid delegation of legislative authority.
The court affirmed that subsections (2) and (3) of rule 221-6.006 are arbitrary and invalid; subsection (2) of rule 221-6.037 grants unbridled discretion to hearing officers and is invalid; and subsection (3) of rule 221-6.037 constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative authority because the Division lacks authority to allow hearing officers to impose dismissal with prejudice.
[1] Administrative rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority when they are arbitrary.
[2] A state agency has standing to challenge a proposed rule that affects its interests.
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“subsections (2) and (3) of proposed rule 221-6.006 are arbitrary, and constitute an invalid.exercise of delegated legislative authority”
Establishes that the court found the bid protest rule provisions were both arbitrary and exceeded delegated authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Division of Administrative Hearings proposed rules 221-6.006 and 221-6.037. Subsections (2) and (3) of rule 221-6.006 required agencies to notify …
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 Unbridled Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Division of Administrative Hearings appealed an order which ruled that subsections (2) and (3) of its proposed rule 221-6.-006,1 and subsections (2) and (3) of its pro posed rule 221-6.037,2 are invalid.
We affirm. We find that the hearing officer was correct in determining that subsections (2) and (3) of proposed rule 221-6.006 are arbitrary, and constitute an invalid.exercise of delegated legislative authority. The hearing officer also correctly determined that the Department of Transportation had standing to challenge proposed rule 221-6.037, and that subsection (2) of proposed rule 221-6.037, gives the hearing officer unbridled discretion and therefore is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Finally, the hearing officer correctly determined that subsection (3) of proposed rule 221-6.037, is an invalid delegation of legislative authority, for the Division of Administrative Hearings does not possess the legislative authority to adopt a rule which allows a hearing officer to impose a sanction of dismissal with prejudice.
JOANOS, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . The proposed rules provide in pertinent part:
221-6.006 Bid Protest Proceedings.
(2) Immediately upon receipt of notice of hearing, the agency shall forward copies to all other bidders and, if possible, advise them by telephone of the time and place of hearing. (3) Before final hearing, the agency shall file a statement of compliance with subsections.... (2), ...
. The proposed rules provide in pertinent part: 221-6.037 Dismissal of Administrative Complaint.
(2) After a formal hearing has begun, any request for voluntary dismissal of an administrative complaint, in whole or in part, shall be made by motion which shall set forth the reason for the voluntary dismissal. The hearing officer shall permit the voluntary dismissal, if at all, upon such terms and conditions as the hearing officer deems just and proper. Unless otherwise specified in the order of dismissal, the dismissal of an administrative complaint under this paragraph is without prejudice.
(3) Notice of voluntary dismissal of a subsequent administrative complaint based, in whole or in part, on factual allegations, earlier voluntarily dismissed, shall operate as a dismissal with prejudice as to all nonjurisdictional allegations earlier voluntarily dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Puckett OIL Co., Inc., 577 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…esses or exhibits at the hearing, as a result of a discovery violation, was there found to be overly severe in that the combined effect of the prohibition was as severe as dismissal. Id. See also Division of Admin. Hearings v. Department of Transp., 534 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (hearing officer correctly determined that Florida Administrative Code Rule 221-6.037(3) was an invalid delegation of legislative authority for the reason that the DOAH did not possess legislative authority to adopt a rule allowi…
-
State of Fla. Dep't OF Env't Reg. v. Letchworth, 573 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), without fully resolving the matter this court concluded that an agency had at least “colorable” authority to deny the withdrawal of an application under its general regulatory power. While DER notes that in DOAH v. DOT, 534 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the court indicated that an administrative rule which allowed the hearing officer to consider a request for voluntary dismissal, and permit such dismissal if “just and proper,” was an invalid exercise of delegated authority, thi…