G.A. MACK, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2005-11-02
No. 4D04-1868
STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
912 So. 2d 1274 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2005)

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.


Holding

The court held that the Immediate Final Order (IFO) was defective and invalid due to numerous errors and subsequent amendments, causing prejudice to the appellant.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was ordered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to allow the removal/destruction of citrus trees on his property …

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.

Topics

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw


Opinion of the Court
SCOLA, JACQUELINE HOGAN, Associate Judge.

SCOLA, JACQUELINE HOGAN, Associate Judge.

Appellant, G.A. Mack, appeals from the issuance of an Immediate Final Order (IFO) by appellee, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The IFO requires appellant to allow appellee to remove/destroy certain citrus trees on appellant’s property alleged to have been exposed to other citrus trees contaminated by citrus canker by virtue of their proximity within 1900 feet of the contaminated trees. See Fla. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. City of Pompano Beach, 792 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

However, due to numerous errors in the specifics surrounding the IFO, and subsequent amendments attempted with respect to the IFO, appellant is prejudiced. The mistakes made herein put in question whether the subject trees are in or out of range of the contaminated trees.

We find the IFO to be defective, and thus, invalid. There is prejudice to appellant in this case. See Meszaros v. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 861 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

We reverse and remand for further proceedings in order for appellee to correct and/or supplement the record at a hearing regarding relevant addresses, locations, property owners’ names, and most importantly, whether the subject trees were within a distance to be exposed to the citrus canker so as to warrant destruction of the subject trees.

Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings.

STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw