J.E. HILL CONTRACTOR, INC., HILL MARKETING, INC., AND HILL MILLING, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA 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.
Hill appeals the Florida Department of Transportation's revocation of his disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) certification. The court agrees that FDOT improperly included findings concerning Hill's actual economic and social status beyond what was necessary based on Hill's concession that the rebuttable presumption in the administrative code could not support his DBE status.
The court agreed that the findings should be limited to Hill's concession regarding the rebuttable presumption. The portion of Conclusion of Law No. 4 addressing Hill's actual socially and economically disadvantaged status must be stricken, as it was not supported by the record or Hill's limited concession.
[1] A government agency's findings regarding an individual's social and economic status must be limited to the scope of the individual's concession in a proceeding, absent ev…
[2] A conclusion of law that an individual is not socially and economically disadvantaged, when read in conjunction with a prior conclusion that the individual is not include…
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“Hill contends that the findings should be limited to Hill's concession that absent the rebuttable presumption contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-78.002, the presumption being that certain Native Americans are socially and economically disadvantaged, Hill could not prevail in this proceeding. We agree that the findings should be so limited.”
Establishes the core issue and the court's agreement with Hill's position that findings should be limited to the scope of his concession.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHill held a disadvantaged business enterprise certification. FDOT revoked this certification and issued findings that included conclusions about Hill'…
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 Rebuttable Presumption cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hill appeals from a final order of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) revoking appellant’s disadvantaged business enterprise certification (DBE). While Hill does not contest the revocation of his DBE status based upon current rules and statutes, he asserts that FDOT improperly included findings concerning his actual economic and social status. We agree.
Hill contends that the findings should be limited to Hill’s concession that absent the rebuttable presumption contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-78.002, the presumption being that certain Native Americans are socially and economically disadvantaged, Hill could not prevail in this proceeding. We agree that the findings should be so limited.
Hill urges us to strike the underlined portion of the conclusion of law number 4 in the department’s order. This paragraph states: -
4. There are no disputed issues of material fact regarding Hill’s presumptive status, nor are there disputed facts regarding Hill’s socially and economically disadvantaged status.
As neither the record nor the limited scope of Hill’s concession contained in his Motion for Determination That No Material Facts Are in Dispute support the latter portion of this conclusion, we order that portion be stricken. Hill has also urged us to strike conclusion of law number 7. This conclusion must be read in conjunction with conclusion of law number 6. These conclusions read:
6. Hill is not included in the class of individuals presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-78.
7. Hill is not socially and economically disadvantaged as defined and set forth by the Rules, regulations and guidelines set forth herein.
We find that when read with conclusion of law number 6, conclusion of law number 7 is an accurate representation concerning the administrative proceedings.
We reverse and remand for removal of the language contained in conclusion of law number 4 concerning Hill’s actual and social economic status. In all other aspects we affirm the order of the department.
SHIVERS, MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.