EYRIE LAND COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

S. KIRBY MONCRIEF, ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Mid-Chattahoochee River Users v. Fla. Dep't of Env't Prot., 948 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
  …. The intent of Agrico was to preclude parties from intervening in a proceeding where those parties’ substantial interests are totally unrelated to the issues that are to be resolved in the administrative proceedings. Gregory v. Indian River County, 610 So. 2d 547, 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Because the Department focused on the second prong of the Agrico test in denying appellant’s amended petition, we will do the same. Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, entitled “Water Resources,” is composed of six parts. One o…
• Rosenzweig v. Dep't OF Transp., 979 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
  …dividual bicyclists. Id. at 299. Thus, a challenge to the Department’s application of the statute by a bicyclist organization located in Palm Beach County meets the standing requirement delineated in Agrico. See also Gregory v. Indian River County, 610 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (finding homeowners had a substantial interest in administrative proceeding before the Department of Environmental Regulation where the county sought a permit to construct a stormwater treatment system and engage in dredge and fi…
• S. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. State, 141 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
  …‘sufficient interest in the outcome of the litigation which warrants the court’s entertaining it’ and to assure that a party has a personal stake in the outcome so he will adequately represent the interest he asserts.” Gregory v. Indian River Cnty., 610 So. 2d 547, 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (quoting Gen. Dev. Corp. v. Kirk, 251 So. 2d 284, 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)). Under the first prong of Agrico, the injury-in-fact standard is met by a showing that the petitioner has sustained actual or immediate threatened in…