STUART KANTOR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MONROE COUNTY, 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 court held that the appellant waived appellate review of factual findings by failing to file exceptions and that the agency's penalty determination was not subject to review.
Stuart Kantor appealed the termination of his employment by the Monroe County School Board. He argued that factual findings were unsupported and that …
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 Collective Bargaining Agreement Grievance Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stuart Kantor appeals an order of the Monroe County School Board terminating his employment. We affirm.
conclude that no violation of the appellant’s due process rights has been shown. To the extent that appellant con-conthere was a violation of a provision of the collective bargaining agreement, appel-appelwas obliged to resort to the grievance procedures specified therein.
Appellant argues that certain of the factual findings are not supported by substantial competent evidence. In this case a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings prepared a recommended order. The parties were advised of their right to file exceptions to the recommended order and the deadline for doing so. Appellant did not file exceptions. At the hearing conducted by the School Board, the appellant advised the School Board that he did not seek a change in the factual findings, but only sought a change in the penalty recommended by the hearing officer. We conclude that appellant “cannot argue on appeal matters which were not properly excepted to or challenged before the [agency] and thus were not preserved for appellate review.” Couch v. Commission on Ethics, 617 So. 2d 1119, 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); see also Environmental Coalition of Florida, Inc. v. Broward County, 586 So. 2d 1212,1213 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Florida Dep’t of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122, 1123-24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In any event, the testimony of the students constituted substantial competent evidence. See generally § 120.58(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). The question of credibility was for the hearing officer to determine.
We are precluded from reviewing the penalty in this case under authority of Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla.1978).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sickon v. The Sch. Bd. OF Alachua Cnty., 719 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…be resolved in that matter, if possible, rather than through APA procedures whose object is a final order expressing the decision of the employer-agency and determining a party’s substantial interest. See also Kantor v. School Bd. of Monroe County, 648 So. 2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“To the extent that appellant contends there was a violation of a provision of the collective bargaining agreement, appellant was obliged to resort to the grievance procedures specified therein.”). Redress for violations o…
-
Henderson v. Dep't of Health, 954 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…e he did not file exceptions to hearing officer’s findings of fact). Because Ms. Henderson failed to challenge the factual findings before the Board, she cannot do so now for the first time on appeal.1 See, e.g., Kantor v. Sch. Bd. of Monroe County, 648 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that terminated school employee could not argue on appeal matters that were not properly excepted to or challenged before school board, and, thus, were not preserved for appellate review).2 Even if considered on the meri…
-
Inv. Corp. OF Palm Beach v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 714 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…v. Barker, 677 So. 2d 254, 256 (Fla.1996) (“A party ‘cannot argue on appeal matters which were not properly excepted to or challenged before the [agency] and thus were not preserved for appellate review.’ ”); Kantor v. School Board of Monroe County, 648 So. 2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (same); Couch v. Commission on Ethics, 617 So. 2d 1119, 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (same).5 II. On the merits, the majority errs in its interpretation of the declaratory statement provision of the Florida Administrative Proc…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Casimir Szpak v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1978)
- Fla. Dep't OF Corr. v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Couch v. Comm'n ON Ethics, 617 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Env't Coal. OF Fla., Inc. v. Broward Cnty. & the Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, 586 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)