CHARLES W. FLANAGAN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES ET AL., APPELLEES
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 court affirmed the trial court's order transferring venue from Broward County to Leon County because governmental agency defendants have a statutory right to be sued in the county where they maintain their principal office.
Governmental agencies have a right to be sued in the county where they maintain their principal office, and the trial court properly transferred venue to Leon County.
[1] Governmental agencies have a statutory right to be sued in the county where they maintain their principal office, and this right is not waived by the presence of other de…
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 intelligencePlaintiffs sued governmental agencies in Broward County, Florida, and the defendants moved to transfer venue to Leon County where the agencies' princi…
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 Waiver Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, sued appel-lees, defendants below, in Broward County, Florida. Appellees moved to transfer venue to Leon County, Florida. The court granted the change of venue and it is this order that appellants are interlocutorily appealing.
We hold that the court was correct in granting the change of venue. The defendants included governmental agencies. Generally, governmental agencies have a right to be sued in the county in which the agency is located. Ringling Bros.—Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. State, 295 So. 2d 314 (1st DCA Fla.1974). A suit involving a governmental' agency should be brought in the county in which the agency has its principal office even though there are other defendants with their residence or principal office in a different county. Fla.Stat. § 47.021 (1973); Amelia Island Mosquito Control District v. Tyson, 150 So. 2d 246 (1st DCA Fla.1963).
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order as the defendants which are governmental agencies did not waive their privilege to be sued in the county of their principal office, Leon County, nor did the plaintiff allege facts sufficient to bring them within an exception to the general rule.
Affirmed.
OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Agric. v. Bryant Middleton, 24 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…conclusion, the trial court erred in denying the Defendants’ motion to transfer venue. On remand, the court should transfer venue to Leon County where the State Agencies have their principal offices. See Flanagan v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 314 So. 2d 235, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (affirming order transferring venue to county where governmental agency had its principal office even though there were other defendants with a residence in another county). We recognize that the State Agencies and Tidwell a…
-
State v. Bertie Chothen, 328 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…sued in the county in which the agency’s principal office is located even though there are other defendants with their residences or principal offices in a different county. Flanagan v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Fla.App. 1975, 314 So. 2d 235. We hold, however, that the court was correct in denying the change of venue since the facts presented in the instant case fall within an exception to the general rule. Section 768.28, Fla.Stat., which waives sovereign immunity in tort actions beca…
-
Finley-Green Joint Venture v. State, 353 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…e have concluded that, under the facts of this case, the trial court did not err. See, e. g., Larson v. Cooper, 75 So. 2d 757 (Fla.1954); McCarty v. Lichtenberg, 67 So. 2d 655 (Fla.1953); Flanagan v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 314 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Ringling Bros.-Barnum and Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., v. State, 295 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); and Amelia Island Mosquito Control District v. Tyson, 150 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). Therefore, the order appealed is affi…
Authorities Cited
- Ringling BROS.-BARNUM & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. State, 295 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Amelia Island Mosquito Control Dist. v. Tyson, 150 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)