10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Askew v. Cross Key Waterwaysgreen2 sentences2015Turning to UFF’s claim that the “statutory framework” pursuant to which the challenged rule was adopted violates the nondelegation doctrine, we begin with the seminal case of Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So.2d 913 (Fla.1978), in which the Court explained that the non-delegation doctrine requires that: fundamental and primary policy decisions shall be made by members of the legislature who are elected to perform those tasks, and administration of legislative programs must be pursuant to some minimal standards and guidelines ascertainable by reference to the enactment establishing the progr 2015This prohibition, known as the non-delegation doctrine, requires that "fundamental and primary policy decisions ... be made by members of the legislature who are elected to perform those tasks, and [that the] administration of legislative programs must be pursuant to some minimal standards and guidelines ascertainable by reference to the enactment establishing the program.” Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So.2d 913, 925 (Fla.1978) .... | 4 | 5 |
Lewis v. Bank of Pasco Countygreen1 sentence2015"The statute must so clearly define the power delegated that the [executive] is precluded from acting through whim, showing favoritism, or exercising unbridled discretion.” Lewis v. Bank of Pasco County, 346 So.2d 53, 55-56 (Fla.1976). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. APALACHEE REG. PLANNING COUNCILgreen1 sentence2015Id. at 925 ; see also Brown v. Apalachee Reg’l Planning Council, 560 So.2d 782, 784 (Fla.1990) (explaining that the nondelegation doctrine “arises from article II, section 3, of the Florida Constitution” and “essentially prohibits the legislature from delegating to another branch the power to enact a law or to declare what the law shall be”) (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
University of Miami v. Echartegreen2 sentences2014See also Echarte, 618 So. 2d at 191 (holding that the caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases where a party offers arbitration do not violate “the non-delegation doctrine”); Cauley, 403 So. 2d at 387 (holding that caps on damages in tort cases against municipalities do not violate “the separation of powers rule”). 2014See Univ. of Miami v. Echarte, 618 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1993) (“[W]e have also considered the other constitutional claims and hold that the statutes do not violate the right to trial by jury, equal protection guarantees, substantive or procedural due process rights, the single subject requirement, the taking clause, or the non- delegation doctrine.”). | 1 | 1 |
Pinillos v. Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Corp.green2 sentences2014See also Echarte, 618 So.2d at 191 (holding that the caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases where a party offers arbitration do not violate “the non-delegation doctrine”); Cauley, 403 So.2d at 387 (holding that caps on damages in tort cases against municipalities do not violate “the separation of powers rule”). 2014See also Echarte, 618 So. 2d at 191 (holding that the caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases where a party offers arbitration do not violate “the non-delegation doctrine”); Cauley, 403 So. 2d at 387 (holding that caps on damages in tort cases against municipalities do not violate “the separation of powers rule”). | 1 | 1 |
Astral Liquors v. DEPT. OF BUSINESS REG.green1 sentence1992See Astral Liquors, Inc. v. Department of Business Reg., 463 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla.1985); Department of Business Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco v. Jones, 474 So.2d 359, 361-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 8 (Fla.1986); Florida Waterworks Ass’n v. Florida Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Department of Business Regulation v. Jonesgreen1 sentence1992See Astral Liquors, Inc. v. Department of Business Reg., 463 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla.1985); Department of Business Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco v. Jones, 474 So.2d 359, 361-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 8 (Fla.1986); Florida Waterworks Ass’n v. Florida Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Dept. of Ins. v. Southeast Volusia Hosp. Dist.green2 sentences1989Nevertheless, further discussion of this case in the context of the non-delegation rule is merited. "[T]he crucial test in determining whether a statute amounts to an unlawful delegation of legislative power is whether the statute contains sufficient standards or guidelines to enable the agency and the courts to determine whether the agency is carrying out the legislature's intent." Department of Insurance v. Southeast Volusia Hospital District, 438 So.2d 815, 819 (Fla. 1983). 1989Nevertheless, further discussion of this case in the context of the non-delegation rule is merited. "[T]he crucial test in determining whether a statute amounts to an unlawful delegation of legislative power is whether the statute contains sufficient standards or guidelines to enable the agency and the courts to determine whether the agency is carrying out the legislature's intent." Department of Insurance v. Southeast Volusia Hospital District, 438 So.2d 815, 819 (Fla. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
DIV. OF PARI-MUTUEL ETC. v. Caplegreen1 sentence1981See Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Caple, supra ; Department of Business Regulation v. Vandervoort, 273 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1973); Hialeah Racing Course, Inc. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., supra ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kline v. State
green
1 sentence2024Comm’n v. Blair, 52 So. 3d 9 , 11–13 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (recognizing that Save the Manatee Club continues to provide a correct interpretation of section 120.52). 5 To the extent that Appellants’ specificity argument sounds in non-delegation rather than invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, they did not assert a non-delegation challenge below. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
M.G. v. Department of Children & Families
green
1 sentence2016In its comment, FACDL argued that instruction 11.14 should not be amended to include new paragraph 3(f) because the statute upon which the paragraph is based— section 943.0435(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015) — is unconstitutional in that it “violates the non-delegation doctrine, is void for vagueness, and represents a deprivation of the due process of law.” FACDL also suggested adding a citation to the Second ¡District Court of Appeal’s decision in Eveland v. State, 161 So.3d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) to instructions 11.14(d) and 11.15(g). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Microtel, Inc. v. FLA. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
green
2 sentences2015In Microtel, the supreme court upheld a statute that directed the Public Service Commission to authorize intrastate long distance telephone service against a non-delegation claim. 464 So.2d at 1191 . 2015As the court noted, “the legislature made the ‘fundamental and primary policy decision’ that there be competition in long distance telephone service.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Smith v. Department of Ins.
green
2 sentences2014This Court in Smith explained that “[wjhen the legislature enacted these provisions, it was addressing the substantive rights of plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation actions with regard to recovery of damages.” 507 So.2d at 1092 . 2014This Court in Smith explained that “[w]hen the legislature enacted these provisions, it was addressing the substantive rights of plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation actions with regard to recovery of damages.” 507 So. 2d at 1092 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Department of Business Regulation v. Vandervoort
green
1 sentence1981See Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Caple, supra ; Department of Business Regulation v. Vandervoort, 273 So.2d 66 (Fla. 1973); Hialeah Racing Course, Inc. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., supra ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.