MARVIS JOHNSON, ET AL.
v.
FIRSTSERVICE, INC., ET AL.
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.
An agency's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and the agency's decision is affirmed when the hearing officer properly weighs evidence, makes credibility determinations, and bases findings on competent substantial evidence.
[1] An agency's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, while the agency's factual findings are upheld if supported by competent substantial evidence in the record.
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 intelligenceMarvis Johnson and others appealed a decision by the Florida Commission on Human Relations regarding a dispute with FirstService, Inc. The case origin…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 20, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0319
Lower Tribunal No. DOAH 23-4717, FCHR 2022-33353
Marvis Johnson, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
FirstService, Inc., et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Akerman LLP, and Kristen M. Fiore (Tallahassee), Eric J. Gribbin (Chicago), for appellants.
Shir Law Group, P.A., and Patrick Dervishi (Boca Raton), for appellees.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See S.F. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 394 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“We review an agency's conclusions of law de novo and we review the record to determine whether competent substantial evidence supports the agency's decision.” (citation omitted)); U.S. Blood Bank, Inc. v. Agency for Workforce Innovation, 85 So. 3d 1139, 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“[W]e review the agency's conclusions of law de novo, and we will defer to the agency's conclusions of law unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law." (citation omitted)); see, e.g., G.R. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 315 So. 3d 107, 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (affirming agency final order where “the hearing officer properly weighed the evidence presented, made credibility determinations as necessary, and made findings supported by competent substantial evidence").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States Blood Bank, Inc. v. Agency FOR Workforce Innovation c/o Dep't of Revenue, 85 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- A.C. C/O V.R. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 315 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)