DAYTONA BEACH KENNEL CLUB, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 2010-04-23
No. 5D08-4246
GRIFFIN, PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
33 So. 3d 799 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2010)

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.

Synopsis

Daytona Beach Kennel Club challenged a Department of Business and Professional Regulation order dismissing its petition to challenge a permit issued to a competitor to conduct quarter-horse races. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the kennel club lacked standing to challenge the permit issuance.


Holding

Daytona Beach Kennel Club lacked standing to challenge the issuance of the permit to De-Bary. The Division properly dismissed the petition without referring it to the Division of Administrative Hearings because standing is a question of law, and dismissal is appropriate where undisputed facts demonstrate lack of standing.


Headnotes

[1] A party must be substantially affected by the issuance of a pari-mutuel wagering permit to have standing to challenge it.

[2] The issue of standing in administrative proceedings is typically a question of law.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“On the issue of standing, we conclude the Division properly applied Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and correctly concluded that DB Kennel Club lacked standing to challenge the issuance of a pari-mutuel wagering permit to DeBary.”

Establishes the applicable legal standard and the court's conclusion on the primary issue

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Daytona Beach Kennel Club sought to challenge the issuance of a permit to De-Bary Real Estate Holdings, Inc. to conduct quarter-horse races in southwe…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Daytona Beach Kennel Club, Inc. [“DB Kennel Club”], challenges a final order of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of PariMutuel Wagering [“the Division”], dismissing with prejudice its petition for formal administrative hearing based on a determination that DB Kennel Club lacked standing. DB Kennel Club’s petition sought to challenge the issuance of a permit to De-bary Real Estate Holdings, Inc. [“De-Bary”] to conduct quarter-horse races in southwest Volusia County.

On appeal, DB Kennel Club asserts that it has standing because it is substantially affected by the issuance of the permit to DeBary. DB Kennel Club further contends the Division lacked the authority to dismiss its petition without conducting a hearing. On the issue of standing, we conclude the Division properly applied Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and correctly concluded that DB Kennel Club lacked standing to challenge the issuance of a pari-mutuel wagering permit to DeBary. See Gadsden Jai Alai, Inc. v. State of Florida, Dep’t of Bus. & Prof. Reg., Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 26 So.3d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We further find no error in the failure to refer the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a hearing. The issue of standing is normally a question of law, as it was in this case. Dismissal is appropriate where undisputed facts demonstrate that a party lacks standing. See Fla. Society of Ophthalmology v. State Bd. of Optometry, 532 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Peace River/Manasota Reg’l Water Supply Auth. v. IMC Phosphates Co., 18 So.3d 1079, 1082-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw