RONALD M. BROOKE, APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the administrative order dismissing Brooke's untimely challenge to the University of Central Florida's 2005 Campus Master Plan Amendment as not supported by competent, substantial evidence and procedurally sound.
An amended petition challenging a university's campus master plan amendment filed outside the applicable time period is properly dismissed as untimely, and the plan amendments comply with statutory requirements.
[1] An amended petition challenging a university campus master plan amendment must be filed within the applicable statutory time period or be subject to dismissal as untimely…
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 intelligenceRonald M. Brooke challenged the University of Central Florida's 2005-2015 Campus Master Plan Amendment and 2005 Stadium Amendment through an amended p…
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 Administrative Agency Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ronald M. Brooke appeals a final administrative order, which (1) determined that Mr. Brooke’s amended petition, which challenged the University of Central Florida’s 2005-2015 Campus Master Plan (“2005 CMP Amendment”), was not timely filed; (2) found that the 2005 CMP Amendment and the 2005 Stadium Amendment comply with the requirements of section 1013.30, Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6C-21; and (3) denied Mr. Brooke’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. On appeal, Mr. Brooke raises various challenges to the final administrative order. We affirm.
This Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency in assessing the weight of the evidence for resolving disputed issues of fact. See § 120.68(10), Fla. Stat. (2005). Rather, we may set aside agency action only when we find that the action is dependent on any finding that is not supported by competent, substantial evidence of the record, a material error in procedure, an incorrect interpretation of law, or an abuse of discretion. § 120.68(7), Fla. Stat. (2005); see Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc. v. Clark, 668 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1996); Gross v. Dep’t of Health, 819 So. 2d 997, 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Having carefully reviewed the record and the detailed order prepared by the Administrative Law Judge, we find no basis to reverse the challenged order. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Legal Env't Assistance Found., Inc. v. Clark, 668 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1996)
- Howard E. Gross, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 819 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)