DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, PETITIONER,
v.
P. MICHAEL RUFF, ETC., 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 Supreme Court rejected the Department of Business Regulation's petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent an administrative hearing officer from exercising jurisdiction over a challenge to emergency rules. The Court held that while the Department of Administrative Hearings generally has jurisdiction over such rules, the unique circumstances of this case—involving constitutional issues intertwined with administrative rule issues following a U.S. Supreme Court reversal—required all issues to be resolved by the circuit court.
The Department of Administrative Hearings generally has jurisdiction over emergency rules promulgated by the Department of Business Regulation. However, under the unique circumstances of this case, where constitutional issues are so entwined with administrative rule issues, all issues must be resolved by the circuit court rather than the administrative hearing officer.
[1] A hearing officer lacks jurisdiction over a petition for administrative determination of the validity of emergency rules when the matter has been remanded to the circuit…
[2] When constitutional issues are entwined with administrative rule issues, a single judicial proceeding may be necessary to resolve all matters.
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“While we agree that the Department of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over emergency rules promulgated by the Department of Business Regulation, we find that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the constitutional issues are so entwined with the administrative rule issues that all the issues should be resolved in one judicial proceeding.”
Establishes the Court's holding that while administrative jurisdiction normally exists, unique circumstances here require circuit court resolution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Business Regulation promulgated emergency rules following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcohol…
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 Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, seeks to prohibit a Division of Administrative Hearings hearing officer from exercising jurisdiction over a petition for administrative determination of the validity of emergency rules.1 The rules in issue were promulgated by the Department of Business Regulation after the United States Supreme Court decision in McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18, 110 S.Ct. 2238, 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990).
The Department of Business Regulation asserts that the hearing officer is without jurisdiction because, on remand, only the circuit court has jurisdiction in this matter. This cause presents unique jurisdictional and legal issues because of its present posture. This posture is the result of the reversal, in part, of this Court’s decision in Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corp., 524 So. 2d 1000 (Fla.1988), by the United States Supreme Court in McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18, 110 S.Ct. 2238, 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990), and this Court’s subsequent remand to the circuit court in Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. McKesson Corp., 574 So. 2d 114 (Fla.1991), for further proceedings consistent with decision of the United States Supreme Court. While we agree that the Department of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over emergency rules promulgated by the Department of Business Regulation, we find that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the constitutional issues are so entwined with the administrative rule issues that all the issues should be resolved in one judicial proceeding. In our remand decision, we stated:
Because nonparties ... will be directly affected by the retroactive tax scheme proposed by the state, all affected by the proposed emergency rule must be given notice and an opportunity to intervene in this action. Therefore, on remand, the trial court not only must determine whether the state’s proposal meets “the minimum federal requirements” outlined in the Supreme Court’s opinion, it also must determine whether the proposal comports with federal and state protections afforded those against whom the proposed tax will be assessed.
Id. at 116. While we deny the petition for a writ of prohibition, we find that, at this stage of the proceeding, all of the issues can be resolved only by the circuit court. Accordingly, under our jurisdiction of this cause, as well as the supervisory and transfer authority contained in article V, section 2, of the Florida Constitution, we direct that all issues pertaining to this taxing scheme be heard by the circuit judge assigned to this cause on remand.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(7), Fla. Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. E.D.S. Fed. Corp., 631 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ding EDS’s claim that the RFP procedure provided an inadequate remedy because its cause of action against the Comptroller remains in circuit court, EDS relies upon Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco v. Ruff, 592 So. 2d 668 (Fla.1991). In that ease, our supreme court ruled that rather than split a ease so that the circuit court could decide constitutional issues while the Division of Administrative Hearings determined the validity of challenged emergency rules, the cir…
-
Gregory v. Indian River Cnty. & State of Fla. Dep't of Env't Reg., 610 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…must first determine which matters should be re [*552] solved through an administrative environmental permitting procedure, and which matters should be resolved in a circuit court eminent domain proceeding. Department of Business Regulation v. Ruff, 592 So. 2d 668 (Fla.1991).2 A governmental entity may only utilize the powers of eminent domain to obtain ownership of land to the extent that it has shown a reasonable necessity for acquiring the land in question. Pasco County v. Franzel, 569 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2n…
Authorities Cited
- McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1990)
- Division OF Alcoholic Beverages AND Tobacco v. McKESSON Corp., 524 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1988)
- Division OF Alcoholic Beverages AND Tobacco v. McKesson Corp., 574 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1991)