JEFF OSBORN, PETITIONER,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Third District Court of Appeal granted certiorari to clarify which standard of review the circuit court applied in its administrative appeal, as the order contained language from two different standards.
On first-tier certiorari review of administrative decisions, the circuit court must determine whether procedural due process was accorded, whether the essential requirements of law were observed, and whether administrative findings are supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] On first-tier certiorari review of administrative decisions, the circuit court must determine whether procedural due process was accorded, whether essential requirements…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the circuit court must determine whether procedural due process is accorded, whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent substantial evidence.”
Statement of the standard for first-tier certiorari review from administrative decisions
Osborn petitioned for certiorari review of a Board of County Commissioners administrative decision in circuit court, and the circuit court issued an o…
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 First-Tier Certiorari Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On first-tier certiorari review from an administrative decision, “the circuit court must determine whether procedural due process is accorded, whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent substantial evidence.” City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla.1982). The Petitioner is, in effect, entitled to consideration of whether the administrative agency followed its laws and regulations, and whether the agency’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. Baker v. Metro. Dade County, 774 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Thus, at first tier level, the circuit court may correct any errors made below: jurisdictional, procedural or substantive; and judgments may be modified, reversed, remanded with directions, or affirmed. See G-W Dev. Corp. v. Village of N. Palm Beach Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 317 So. 2d 828, 830-831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Because the circuit court’s order, in different places, contains verbiage from two different standards of review, in the instant case, it is unclear which standard the court employed in reaching its conclusion. Accordingly, we grant certiorari for the sole purpose of allowing the circuit court to indicate which standard of review it used.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Miami Beach v. Beach Blitz (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…). In other words, petitioners are “entitled to consideration of whether the administrative agency followed its laws and regulations, and whether the agency’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence.” Osborn v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 937 So. 2d 1119, 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “Second-tier” certiorari review may then be pursued in this Court. See Miami- Dade Cty., 863 So. 2d at 199. This Court’s review, however, is much more limited in such a case: we consider only whether the circuit court “…
-
Barfield v. Jupiter Inlet Colony (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2008)…process was violated by the appointment of the Special Master by the town attorney, rather than by the Town Commission as the Town's ordinances require. The Town is not free to ignore its own laws and regulations. See Osborn v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 937 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Verizon Wireless Pers. Commc'n, L.P. v. The Sanctuary at Wulfert Point Comty. Ass'n, Inc., 916 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Florida Statute section 162.03 allows the Town to adopt, by ordinance, a code enforcement system that…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- G-W Dev. Corp. v. The Vill. OF N. Palm Beach Zoning Bd. OF Adjustment & Mader & Ryan, Inc., 317 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Baker v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 774 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)