OLIVER HILL ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF LEON COUNTY, APPELLEE; OLIVER HILL ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. SCHOOL BOARD OF LEON COUNTY, RESPONDENT
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.
Parents challenged a school board's discontinuation of county-paid transportation on dangerous routes for children living within two miles of school, arguing the board violated Florida's Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow required rulemaking procedures. The court held that the board's announcement of discontinuing an optional service was not a 'rule' requiring APA compliance and that affected parties had not exhausted administrative remedies available under the APA.
The board's announcement that an optional service previously provided would be discontinued is not a rule requiring APA Section 120.54 procedures because it is not a statement intended to create rights or require compliance with the direct and consistent effect of law. The circuit court properly denied injunctive relief where the parents had not attempted to invoke available administrative remedies under Sections 120.54(5) or 120.57.
[1] A statement by an agency announcing the discontinuation of an optional service is not necessarily a rule requiring administrative procedure act rulemaking if it is not in…
[2] In doubtful cases, courts should withhold judicial imperatives and leave affected parties to initiate rulemaking or request proceedings for agency action affecting substa…
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“The Board's announcement that an optional service previously provided will be discontinued is not necessarily a rule because it is not a statement "which [is] intended by [its] own effect to create rights or to require compliance, or otherwise to have the direct and consistent effect of law."”
Establishes the legal standard distinguishing policy announcements from rules requiring APA compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe School Board of Leon County discontinued its prior practice of providing county-paid transportation on dangerous routes to school children whose h…
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 Motion For Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
The petition for review asserts that the School Board engaged in illicit rulemak-ing, without complying with Section 120.54, by discontinuing its prior practice of affording county-paid transportation on dangerous routes to school children whose transportation costs are not payable from state funds because their homes are within two miles from school. See Section 234.01, Florida Statutes (1975) and Fla.Admin. Code R. 6A-3.01(3) of the State Board of Education. While county school transportation policy may be a proper one for rulemaking, as may policy concerning the availability of hot breakfasts and the distribution and care of school books, not every statement by the Board on those subjects is a rule for which Section 120.54 procedures are required. The Board’s announcement that an optional service previously provided will be discontinued is not necessarily a rule because it is not a statement “which [is] intended by [its] own effect to create rights or to require compliance, or otherwise to have the direct and consistent effect of law.” McDonald v. Dep’t of Banking and Finance, 346 So. 2d 569, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
We recognized in McDonald that APA rulemaking requirements are and must be to some extent self-enforcing. Affected agencies will be pressed toward rule-making by the necessity otherwise to explicate and defend policy repeatedly in Section 120.57 proceedings for agency action affecting the substantial interests of parties. Inasmuch as requiring rulemaking will not automatically provide the transportation petitioners seek, even during the rulemak-ing proceeding itself, our duty in doubtful cases is to withhold judicial imperatives and leave affected parties to initiate rulemaking under Section 120.54(5) or to request proceedings under Section 120.57. Petitioners here have not attempted to invoke either remedy before the Board. Price Wise Buying Group v. Nuzum, 343 So. 2d 115 (Fla, 1st DCA 1977), in which a regulatory agency rescinded official interpretation of its undoubted rule, is distinguished on its facts, as is Straughn v. O’Riordan, 338 So. 2d 832, 834 n. 3 (Fla.1976) (dictum).
The appeal from the circuit court of Leon County, which denied appellants’ motion for injunctive relief, urges that the Board’s asserted error in denying transportation is “so egregious or devastating that the promised administrative remedy is too little or too late,” thereby justifying circuit court intervention. State ex rel. Dep’t of Gen. Serv. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580, 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The circuit court properly ruled to the contrary. Appellants’ other arguments in support of circuit court jurisdiction are unavailing. School Board of Leon County v. Mitchell, 346 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); United Faculty of Florida v. Branson, 350 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
The judgment of the circuit court is AFFIRMED. The prayer of the petition for review is DENIED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., concurs.
MILLS, J., dissents.
MILLS, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent.
I would reverse.
In my judgment, the School Board’s action in discontinuing its prior practice of providing school bus transportation to students who live within two miles of their assigned school was invalid because it was a rule, section 120.52(14), Florida Statutes (1977), which was not promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes (1977).
But we have more than this involved here. We have the lives and limbs of children jeopardized because they are now required to walk a dangerous route to school without any safeguards being supplied.
It seems to me that the Administrative Procedure Act was not intended to defeat justice. Yet the construction placed upon it by the majority does just this. We should never become so technical that we obscure the justice of a case. To do so merely brings justice and those who administer it into disrepute. Although we must have rules to guide us in the performance of our duties, we should never ignore common sense in reaching a just result. If we desire respect for the law, and we do, we must first make the law respectable. To do this we must not permit technicalities from preventing justice being done.
I would reverse the trial court’s order and would require the School Board to resume school bus transportation of children within two miles of their school until the School Board has taken proper action to adopt such rule as it ultimately decides to adopt.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Framat Realty, Inc., 407 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…he development of known policies within statutory limits by “moving from vague standards to definite standards to broad principles to rules.” 346 So. 2d 580, quoting K. Davis, Discretionary Justice 55 (1969). In Hill v. School Board of Leon County, 351 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1215 (Fla.1978), the Court noted that the APA rulemaking requirements are to some extent “self-enforcing” because affected agencies otherwise must “explicate and defend policy repeatedly” in individ…
-
Bowling v. Dep't OF Ins., 394 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…nclusively establish agency policy for purposes of this disciplinary proceeding. The necessity of reproving contested nonrule policy in Section 120.57 proceedings is the price the agency pays to avoid rulemaking. Hill v. School Board of Leon County, 351 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. den., 359 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1978); State Dept. of Health and Rehab. Serv. v. Barr, 359 So. 2d 503, 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (“But the rule is stare decisis, not res judicata .... Section 120.57 proceedings will afford him t…
-
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Dep't OF Bus. Reg., 393 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…for rulemaking — those requirements concerning orders by which “agencies will be pressed toward rulemaking by the necessity otherwise to explicate and defend policy repeatedly in Section 120.57 proceedings .... ” Hili v. School Board of Leon County, 351 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). From an agency’s point of view, the case-by-ease emergence of incipient policy through adjudication has certain understandably attractive features in comparison to rulemaking. Chief among those seeming advantages are retro…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McDONALD v. Dep't OF Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Dep't OF Gen. Servs. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- The Sch. Bd. OF Leon Cnty. v. Mitchell, 346 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Price Wise Buying Grp. v. Nuzum, 343 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Straughn v. O'Riordan, 338 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1976)
- The United Faculty OF Fla. FEA/United v. Branson, 350 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)