STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDERSON COLUMBIA COMPANY, INC., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of prohibition challenge the jurisdiction of the circuit court to enter orders enjoining the Department of Transportation from awarding road construction contracts to White Construction Company during the pendency of administrative proceedings initiated by Anderson Columbia to protest the bid proceedings on the basis that .White was not the lowest responsible bidder. We agree with the Department’s position that the circuit court erred in exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the cause, as Anderson had an adequate administrative remedy available to it under chapter 120. See State ex rel. Department of General Services v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).1 Accordingly, we vacate the orders granting injunctive relief and grant the petitions for writs of prohibition.
ZEHMER, C.J., DAVIS, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur. . We have considered the supplemental authority filed by Anderson but find the cases to be unpersuasive or inapposite. Anderson presently has pending before this court three consolidated appeals challenging the Department's actions concerning its bid protests.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Penalver v. State, 926 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2006)…state to suggest, without evidentiary support, that the defense has “gotten to” and changed a witness’s testimony or that a witness has [*1130] not testified out of fear. See Johnson v. State, 747 So. 2d 436, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Henry v. State, 651 So. 2d 1267, 1268-69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In this case, there was no evidentiary support for the prosecutor’s comment that Wil-sure failed to testify out of fear or made her initial statement because someone threatened her. The state correctly concedes that the…
-
Louzon v. State, 78 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…th DCA 2001); Jones v. State, 449 So. 2d 313, 314-15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The fact that a witness is impeached may imply that the witness is lying, but it does not imply that someone else has made the witness change his or her story. Herny v. State, 651 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). As explained in Tindal, because the prosecutor is an agent of the State, such comments suggest that the prosecutor has unique knowledge that has not been presented to the jury. 803 So. 2d at 810. Additionally, such comment…
-
Cooper v. State, 712 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…eet that night and none of them came in to testify in this case. A suggestion that the defendant suborned perjury or that a defense witness manufactured evidence, without a foundation in the record, is completely improper. See e.g., Henry v. State, 651 So. 2d 1267, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Jones v. State, 449 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Fla. R. Profl Conduct 4-3.4(d). The credibility of the defense witnesses, or of any witness, is for the jury to decide. See e.g., Hufham v. State, 400 So. 2d 133, 13…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)