Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 120.57 (2025)

Additional procedures for particular cases.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

120.57 Additional procedures for particular cases.—

(1) ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO HEARINGS INVOLVING DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT.—

(a) Except as provided in ss. 120.80 and 120.81, an administrative law judge assigned by the division shall conduct all hearings under this subsection, except for hearings before agency heads or a member thereof. If the administrative law judge assigned to a hearing becomes unavailable, the division shall assign another administrative law judge who shall use any existing record and receive any additional evidence or argument, if any, which the new administrative law judge finds necessary.

(b) All parties shall have an opportunity to respond, to present evidence and argument on all issues involved, to conduct cross-examination and submit rebuttal evidence, to submit proposed findings of facts and orders, to file exceptions to the presiding officer’s recommended order, and to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative. When appropriate, the general public may be given an opportunity to present oral or written communications. If the agency proposes to consider such material, then all parties shall be given an opportunity to cross-examine or challenge or rebut the material.

(c) Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.

(d) Notwithstanding s. 120.569(2)(g), similar fact evidence of other violations, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. When the state in an administrative proceeding intends to offer evidence of other acts or offenses under this paragraph, the state shall furnish to the party whose substantial interests are being determined and whose other acts or offenses will be the subject of such evidence, no fewer than 10 days before commencement of the proceeding, a written statement of the acts or offenses it intends to offer, describing them and the evidence the state intends to offer with particularity. Notice is not required for evidence of acts or offenses which is used for impeachment or on rebuttal.

(e)1. An agency or an administrative law judge may not base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule or a rule that is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. This subparagraph does not preclude application of valid adopted rules and applicable provisions of law to the facts.

2. In a matter initiated as a result of agency action proposing to determine the substantial interests of a party, the party’s timely petition for hearing may challenge the proposed agency action based on a rule that is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority or based on an alleged unadopted rule. For challenges brought under this subparagraph:

a. The challenge may be pled as a defense using the procedures set forth in s. 120.56(1)(b).

b. Section 120.56(3)(a) applies to a challenge alleging that a rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

c. Section 120.56(4)(c) applies to a challenge alleging an unadopted rule.

d. This subparagraph does not preclude the consolidation of any proceeding under s. 120.56 with any proceeding under this paragraph.

3. Notwithstanding subparagraph 1., if an agency demonstrates that the statute being implemented directs it to adopt rules, that the agency has not had time to adopt those rules because the requirement was so recently enacted, and that the agency has initiated rulemaking and is proceeding expeditiously and in good faith to adopt the required rules, then the agency’s action may be based upon those unadopted rules if the administrative law judge determines that rulemaking is neither feasible nor practicable and the unadopted rules would not constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if adopted as rules. An unadopted rule shall not be presumed valid. The agency must demonstrate that the unadopted rule:

a. Is within the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature or, if the agency is operating pursuant to authority vested in the agency by the State Constitution, is within that authority;

b. Does not enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented;

c. Is not vague, establishes adequate standards for agency decisions, or does not vest unbridled discretion in the agency;

d. Is not arbitrary or capricious. A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts; a rule is capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational;

e. Is not being applied to the substantially affected party without due notice; and

f. Does not impose excessive regulatory costs on the regulated person, county, or city.

4. The recommended and final orders in any proceeding shall be governed by paragraphs (k) and (l), except that the administrative law judge’s determination regarding an unadopted rule under subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. shall not be rejected by the agency unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record, and states with particularity in the order, that such determination is clearly erroneous or does not comply with essential requirements of law. In any proceeding for review under s. 120.68, if the court finds that the agency’s rejection of the determination regarding the unadopted rule does not comport with this subparagraph, the agency action shall be set aside and the court shall award to the prevailing party the reasonable costs and a reasonable attorney fee for the initial proceeding and the proceeding for review.

5. A petitioner may pursue a separate, collateral challenge under s. 120.56 even if an adequate remedy exists through a proceeding under this section. The administrative law judge may consolidate the proceedings.

(f) The record in a case governed by this subsection shall consist only of:

1. All notices, pleadings, motions, and intermediate rulings.

2. Evidence admitted.

3. Those matters officially recognized.

4. Proffers of proof and objections and rulings thereon.

5. Proposed findings and exceptions.

6. Any decision, opinion, order, or report by the presiding officer.

7. All staff memoranda or data submitted to the presiding officer during the hearing or prior to its disposition, after notice of the submission to all parties, except communications by advisory staff as permitted under s. 120.66(1), if such communications are public records.

8. All matters placed on the record after an ex parte communication.

9. The official transcript.

(g) The agency shall accurately and completely preserve all testimony in the proceeding, and, on the request of any party, it shall make a full or partial transcript available at no more than actual cost.

(h) Any party to a proceeding in which an administrative law judge has final order authority may move for a summary final order when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. A summary final order shall be rendered if the administrative law judge determines from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled as a matter of law to the entry of a final order. A summary final order shall consist of findings of fact, if any, conclusions of law, a disposition or penalty, if applicable, and any other information required by law to be contained in the final order.

(i) When, in any proceeding conducted pursuant to this subsection, a dispute of material fact no longer exists, any party may move the administrative law judge to relinquish jurisdiction to the agency. An order relinquishing jurisdiction shall be rendered if the administrative law judge determines from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with supporting and opposing affidavits, if any, that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists. If the administrative law judge enters an order relinquishing jurisdiction, the agency may promptly conduct a proceeding pursuant to subsection (2), if appropriate, but the parties may not raise any issues of disputed fact that could have been raised before the administrative law judge. An order entered by an administrative law judge relinquishing jurisdiction to the agency based upon a determination that no genuine dispute of material fact exists, need not contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a recommended disposition or penalty.

(j) Findings of fact shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, except in penal or licensure disciplinary proceedings or except as otherwise provided by statute, and shall be based exclusively on the evidence of record and on matters officially recognized.

(k) The presiding officer shall complete and submit to the agency and all parties a recommended order consisting of findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended disposition or penalty, if applicable, and any other information required by law to be contained in the final order. All proceedings conducted under this subsection shall be de novo. The agency shall allow each party 15 days in which to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. The final order shall include an explicit ruling on each exception, but an agency need not rule on an exception that does not clearly identify the disputed portion of the recommended order by page number or paragraph, that does not identify the legal basis for the exception, or that does not include appropriate and specific citations to the record.

(l) The agency may adopt the recommended order as the final order of the agency. The agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law over which it has substantive jurisdiction and interpretation of administrative rules over which it has substantive jurisdiction. When rejecting or modifying such conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule, the agency must state with particularity its reasons for rejecting or modifying such conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule and must make a finding that its substituted conclusion of law or interpretation of administrative rule is as or more reasonable than that which was rejected or modified. Rejection or modification of conclusions of law may not form the basis for rejection or modification of findings of fact. The agency may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the entire record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law. The agency may accept the recommended penalty in a recommended order, but may not reduce or increase it without a review of the complete record and without stating with particularity its reasons therefor in the order, by citing to the record in justifying the action.

(m) If a recommended order is submitted to an agency, the agency shall provide a copy of its final order and any exceptions to the division within 15 days after the order is filed with the agency clerk.

(n) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, when statutes or rules impose conflicting time requirements for the scheduling of expedited hearings or issuance of recommended or final orders, the director of the division shall have the authority to set the proceedings for the orderly operation of this chapter.

(2) ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO HEARINGS NOT INVOLVING DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT.—In any case to which subsection (1) does not apply:

(a) The agency shall:

1. Give reasonable notice to affected persons of the action of the agency, whether proposed or already taken, or of its decision to refuse action, together with a summary of the factual, legal, and policy grounds therefor.

2. Give parties or their counsel the option, at a convenient time and place, to present to the agency or hearing officer written or oral evidence in opposition to the action of the agency or to its refusal to act, or a written statement challenging the grounds upon which the agency has chosen to justify its action or inaction.

3. If the objections of the parties are overruled, provide a written explanation within 7 days.

(b) An agency may not base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule or a rule that is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

1. The notice and summary of grounds.

2. Evidence received.

3. All written statements submitted.

4. Any decision overruling objections.

5. All matters placed on the record after an ex parte communication.

6. The official transcript.

7. Any decision, opinion, order, or report by the presiding officer.

(3) ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO PROTESTS TO CONTRACT SOLICITATION OR AWARD.—Agencies subject to this chapter shall use the uniform rules of procedure, which provide procedures for the resolution of protests arising from the contract solicitation or award process. Such rules shall at least provide that:

(a) The agency shall provide notice of a decision or intended decision concerning a solicitation, contract award, or exceptional purchase by electronic posting. This notice shall contain the following statement: “Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes.”

(b) Any person who is adversely affected by the agency decision or intended decision shall file with the agency a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours after the posting of the notice of decision or intended decision. With respect to a protest of the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in a solicitation, including any provisions governing the methods for ranking bids, proposals, or replies, awarding contracts, reserving rights of further negotiation, or modifying or amending any contract, the notice of protest shall be filed in writing within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation. The formal written protest shall be filed within 10 days after the date the notice of protest is filed. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under this chapter. The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays shall be excluded in the computation of the 72-hour time periods provided by this paragraph.

(c) Upon receipt of the formal written protest that has been timely filed, the agency shall stop the solicitation or contract award process until the subject of the protest is resolved by final agency action, unless the agency head sets forth in writing particular facts and circumstances which require the continuance of the solicitation or contract award process without delay in order to avoid an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare.

(d)1. The agency shall provide an opportunity to resolve the protest by mutual agreement between the parties within 7 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, after receipt of a formal written protest.

2. If the subject of a protest is not resolved by mutual agreement within 7 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, after receipt of the formal written protest, and if there is no disputed issue of material fact, an informal proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to subsection (2) and applicable agency rules before a person whose qualifications have been prescribed by rules of the agency.

3. If the subject of a protest is not resolved by mutual agreement within 7 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, after receipt of the formal written protest, and if there is a disputed issue of material fact, the agency shall refer the protest to the division by electronic means through the division’s website for proceedings under subsection (1).

(e) Upon receipt of a formal written protest referred pursuant to this subsection, the director of the division shall expedite the hearing and assign an administrative law judge who shall commence a hearing within 30 days after the receipt of the formal written protest by the division and enter a recommended order within 30 days after the hearing or within 30 days after receipt of the hearing transcript by the administrative law judge, whichever is later. Each party shall be allowed 10 days in which to submit written exceptions to the recommended order. A final order shall be entered by the agency within 30 days of the entry of a recommended order. The provisions of this paragraph may be waived upon stipulation by all parties.

(f) In a protest to an invitation to bid or request for proposals procurement, no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered. In a protest to an invitation to negotiate procurement, no submissions made after the agency announces its intent to award a contract, reject all replies, or withdraw the solicitation which amend or supplement the reply shall be considered. Unless otherwise provided by statute, the burden of proof shall rest with the party protesting the proposed agency action. In a competitive-procurement protest, other than a rejection of all bids, proposals, or replies, the administrative law judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to determine whether the agency’s proposed action is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications. The standard of proof for such proceedings shall be whether the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. In any bid-protest proceeding contesting an intended agency action to reject all bids, proposals, or replies, the standard of review by an administrative law judge shall be whether the agency’s intended action is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.

(g) For purposes of this subsection, the definitions in s. 287.012 apply.

(4) INFORMAL DISPOSITION.—Unless precluded by law, informal disposition may be made of any proceeding by stipulation, agreed settlement, or consent order.

(5) APPLICABILITY.—This section does not apply to agency investigations preliminary to agency action.

History.—s. 1, ch. 74-310; s. 7, ch. 75-191; s. 8, ch. 76-131; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 5, ch. 77-453; ss. 6, 11, ch. 78-95; s. 6, ch. 78-425; s. 8, ch. 79-7; s. 7, ch. 80-95; s. 4, ch. 80-289; s. 57, ch. 81-259; s. 2, ch. 83-78; s. 9, ch. 83-216; s. 2, ch. 84-173; s. 4, ch. 84-203; ss. 1, 2, ch. 86-108; s. 44, ch. 87-6; ss. 1, 2, ch. 87-54; s. 5, ch. 87-385; s. 1, ch. 90-283; s. 4, ch. 91-30; s. 1, ch. 91-191; s. 22, ch. 92-315; s. 7, ch. 94-218; s. 1420, ch. 95-147; s. 1, ch. 95-328; s. 19, ch. 96-159; s. 1, ch. 96-423; s. 8, ch. 97-176; s. 5, ch. 98-200; s. 3, ch. 98-279; s. 47, ch. 99-2; s. 6, ch. 99-379; s. 2, ch. 2002-207; s. 5, ch. 2003-94; s. 7, ch. 2006-82; s. 12, ch. 2008-104; s. 12, ch. 2011-208; s. 4, ch. 2016-116.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,469 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: McDonald v. Dept. of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McDonald v. Dept. of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). · cites it 29× “Here they seek judicial review of the Department's final order which denied their application after formal proceedings were conducted under the Administrative Procedure *574 Act (APA), Section 120.57, [1] by a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.”

Capeletti Bros., Inc. v. STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP., 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). · cites it 19× “Reynolds Sampson, Tallahassee, for appellee. SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.”

Vill. Saloon v. Div. of Alcoholic Bev., 463 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). · cites it 28× “" The notice also advised each appellant of the right to a formal hearing in accordance with section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and that if appellants wished such a hearing they should file a written request containing the following information: (1) The name and address of the…”

Gadsden State Bank v. Lewis, 348 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). · cites it 19× “[4] Subsection (1) of § 120.57 provides formal proceedings and subsection (2) provides informal proceedings leading to final agency action.”

Florida Dept. of Transp. v. JWC Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). · cites it 12× “62(2) makes reference to hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. [8] It is apparently accepted knowledge that concentrations of automobile pollutants other than carbon monoxide are not as susceptible to prediction using computer modeling techniques as is carbon monoxide.”

Fla. Optometric Ass'n v. Dept. of Pro. Reg., Bd. of Opticianry, 567 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). · cites it 22× “Counsel for the optometrists was present and made a brief argument in support of the petition to intervene and for a formal hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Board took the optometrists' petition under advisement, but did not allow them to participate as…”

Gross v. Dep't of Health, 819 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). · cites it 9× “Standard Of Review Agency Review of Proceedings Before An Administrative Law Judge When substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency, the affected party is entitled to proceed in accordance with section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which allows for a hearing…”

Procacci Com. Realty v. DHRS, 690 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). · cites it 22× “[11] In section 120.57 substantial interest proceedings, the referring agency enters the final order and has no right (nor any need) to appeal its own order.”

Florida Dept., of Offender Rehab. v. Jerry, 353 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). · cites it 10× “08(2) invalid for failure to meet the procedural guidelines set forth in Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976).”

Fla. Exp. Tobacco v. Dept. of Revenue, 510 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). · cites it 13× “This notice also advised appellants that they had a right, under section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1979), to request an administrative hearing regarding the Comptroller's proposed decision and that, if no request were timely made, "this denial shall become final" (R.”

Heifetz v. Dept. of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). · cites it 6× “[2] § 120.57, Fla. Stat. (1983). [3] Section 561.”

Fla. League of Cities, Inc. v. Admin. Com'n, 586 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). · cites it 14× “The appeals involving these two municipalities arise from the imposition of these sanctions, and the municipalities' unsuccessful attempts to receive a section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing on the sanctions issue.”

Show all 1,469 citing cases →

— 120.57(1) — 565 cases

McDonald v. Dept. of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “Here they seek judicial review of the Department's final order which denied their application after formal proceedings were conducted under the Administrative Procedure *574 Act (APA), Section 120.57, [1] by a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.”

Florida Dept. of Transp. v. JWC Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “62(2) makes reference to hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. [8] It is apparently accepted knowledge that concentrations of automobile pollutants other than carbon monoxide are not as susceptible to prediction using computer modeling techniques as is carbon monoxide.”

GEL Corp. v. Dept. of Env't Prot., 875 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Vill. Saloon v. Div. of Alcoholic Bev., 463 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). “" The notice also advised each appellant of the right to a formal hearing in accordance with section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and that if appellants wished such a hearing they should file a written request containing the following information: (1) The name and address of the…”

Gadsden State Bank v. Lewis, 348 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “[4] Subsection (1) of § 120.57 provides formal proceedings and subsection (2) provides informal proceedings leading to final agency action.”

— 120.57(1)(2) — 1 case

Phillips v. Bd. of Dentistry, Dep't of Health, 884 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

— 120.57(1)(B)(10) — 1 case

Jamerson v. Spruell, 658 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

— 120.57(1)(I) — 1 case

Altee v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 990 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

— 120.57(1)(J) — 2 cases

Duke's Steakhouse Ft. Myers, Inc. v. G5 Props., LLC, 106 So. 3d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Toirac v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Div. of Real Est., 2 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

— 120.57(1)(Z) — 24 cases

Cesar v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n, 121 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg/City of St. Petersburg Risk Mgmt., 122 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Citizens of the State of Florida v. Art Graham, etc., 213 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2017).

Bridlewood Grp. Home v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 136 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Abrams v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd., 73 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

— 120.57(1)(a) — 17 cases

Florida State Bd. of Arch. v. Wasserman, 377 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1979).

GEL Corp. v. Dept. of Env't Prot., 875 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Coral Gables v. Stathers Mem'l Lodge 7, 976 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Mellon v. Cannon, 482 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Kawasaki of Tampa, Inc. v. Calvin, 348 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

— 120.57(1)(a)(12) — 1 case

CF Indus., Inc. v. Nichols, 536 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1988).

— 120.57(1)(a)(3) — 1 case

Kimball v. Hawkins, 364 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1978).

— 120.57(1)(b) — 162 cases

Procacci Com. Realty v. DHRS, 690 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “[11] In section 120.57 substantial interest proceedings, the referring agency enters the final order and has no right (nor any need) to appeal its own order.”

Friends of Nassau Cnty., Inc. v. Nassau Cnty., 752 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Sg, 613 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Mercedes Lighting & Elec. Supply, Inc. v. DEPT. GEN. SERV., 560 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

— 120.57(1)(b)(1) — 1 case

Fla. Conval. Centers, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs., 445 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

— 120.57(1)(b)(10) — 43 cases

Crim. Just. Standards & Training Comm. v. Bradley, 596 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1992).

Allen v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty., 571 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 575 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

Rabren v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 568 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

— 120.57(1)(b)(11) — 4 cases

Univ. Cmty. Hosp. v. DHRS, 555 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

City of Ocala v. Marion Cty. Police, 392 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

Lieberman v. Dept. of Pro. Reg., Bd. of Med., 573 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Winslow v. Dept. of Prof. & Occup Reg., 348 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

— 120.57(1)(b)(2) — 1 case

Fla. Optometric Ass'n v. Dept. of Pro. Reg., Bd. of Opticianry, 567 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). “Counsel for the optometrists was present and made a brief argument in support of the petition to intervene and for a formal hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Board took the optometrists' petition under advisement, but did not allow them to participate as…”

— 120.57(1)(b)(3) — 5 cases

Nicolitz v. Bd. of Opticianry, 609 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Miller v. State, Dept. of Env. Reg., 504 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Upjohn Healthcare Servs. v. DEPT. OF HEALTH, 496 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Bd. of Regents ex rel. Univ. of Florida, of the Dep't of Educ., Div. of Universities v. Heuer, 332 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Upjohn Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 12 Fla. Supp. 2d 178 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'g 1985).

— 120.57(1)(b)(4) — 7 cases

Agrico Chem. Co. v. STATE, ETC., 365 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Adam Smith Enter., Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF ENV. REG., 553 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Hall v. Career Serv. Com'n, 478 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Special Disability Trust Fund v. TROPICANA, ETC., 358 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1978).

Florida Dep't of Offender Rehab. v.Dunlap, 344 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

— 120.57(1)(b)(5) — 4 cases

Herrera v. Doctor's Hosp., 360 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Werthman v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cty., 599 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

Hodge v. Dept. of Prof. Reg. of Fla., 432 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

— 120.57(1)(b)(6) — 4 cases

Gretz v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 572 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1991).

Harrell v. State, Dept. of Health, Etc., 361 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

Rabren v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 568 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Smith v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs., 573 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1991).

— 120.57(1)(b)(7) — 4 cases

Smith v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs., 573 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1991).

Gretz v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 572 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1991).

G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Bus. Reg., Div. of Beverage, 362 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

State v. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc., 852 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

— 120.57(1)(b)(8) — 5 cases

G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Bus. Reg., Div. of Beverage, 362 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

Special Disability Trust Fund v. TROPICANA, ETC., 358 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1978).

Gruman v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 379 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

Rabren v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 568 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Cagan v. Bd. of Real Est., 409 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

— 120.57(1)(b)(9) — 50 cases

Harvey v. Nuzum, 345 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Gross v. Dep't of Health, 819 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “Standard Of Review Agency Review of Proceedings Before An Administrative Law Judge When substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency, the affected party is entitled to proceed in accordance with section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which allows for a hearing…”

Univ. Commun. Hosp. v. Dept. of Health, 493 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Pub. Employees Rel. v. Dade Cnty. Police, 467 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1985).

Macpherson v. Sch. Bd. of Monroe Cty., 505 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

— 120.57(1)(b)(a) — 1 case

Upjohn Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 12 Fla. Supp. 2d 178 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'g 1985).

— 120.57(1)(c) — 16 cases

Strickland v. Florida a & M Univ., 799 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Yost v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 848 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Dieguez v. Dept. of Law Enf't, 947 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Miller v. State, Div. of Ret., 796 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Sunshine Chevrolet Oldsmobile v. UAC, 910 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

— 120.57(1)(e) — 6 cases

Env't Trust v. State, 714 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Florida Dep't of Fin. Servs., Div. of Workers' Comp., 156 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Kanter Real Est., LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot., City of Miramar, & Broward Cnty., Florida, 267 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Blue Seven, LLC D/B/A Indigo Float v. Dep't of Health (Fla. 1st DCA 2026).

Kanter Real Est., LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot., City of Miramar, & Broward Cnty., Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

— 120.57(1)(f) — 4 cases

Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 780 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2000).

Amend. to Rules of App. Proc., Civ. Proc., 887 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2004).

Amend. to Fla. Rule of Appellate Proc. 9.020 (A), 681 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1996).

Fec v. Florida Educ. Ass'n, 909 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

— 120.57(1)(g) — 2 cases

State v. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc., 852 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Raymond Adderley v. Dep't of Revenue Child Support Enf't & Makeba Dishaye Gash (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

— 120.57(1)(h) — 1 case

Erica McDonald, as Parent & Nat. Guardian of J.M., a Minor v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n, & Florida Health Sciences Ctr., Inc. D/B/A Tampa Gen. Hosp.; & Univ. of South Florida Bd. of Trs. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

— 120.57(1)(i) — 5 cases

Life Care Centers v. Sawgrass Care Ctr., 683 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

GTECH v. State Dept. of Lottery, 737 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Bush v. Brogan, 725 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Fairpay Solutions v. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE, 969 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

940 Lincoln Road Enter. v. Hernandez, 67 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

— 120.57(1)(j) — 23 cases

Schrimsher v. Sch. Bd., 694 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Dept. of Child. & Families v. Morman, 715 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Roberts v. Dep't of Corr., 690 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Perdue v. TJ Palm Assocs., Ltd., 755 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Lb Bryan & Co. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward, 746 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

— 120.57(1)(k) — 8 cases

Charlotte Cnty. v. IMC-Phosphates Co., 824 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Mehl v. Off. of Fin. Reg., 859 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Cocktails Plus v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg./Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 958 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Mas v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 26 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

— 120.57(1)(l) — 30 cases

Florida Parole Comm'n v. Robert Taylor, 132 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2014).

Stinson v. Winn, 938 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

A.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 230 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

His Kids Daycare v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 904 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Joseph Fox v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 262 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

— 120.57(10) — 1 case

Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Parrimore, 567 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

— 120.57(2) — 120 cases

United States Serv. v. State Dept., Etc., 385 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

Meller v. Florida Real Est. Com'n, 902 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Saddlebrook Resorts v. Wiregrass Ranch, 630 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Jacques v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 15 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

— 120.57(2)(a) — 12 cases

Gen. Dev. Corp. v. Div. of State Plan., Dept. of Adminis., 353 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Keen v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l, 920 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Highsmith v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 499 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

— 120.57(2)(a)(1) — 1 case

City of Panama City v. Fla Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 364 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

— 120.57(2)(a)(2) — 3 cases

Scharrer v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., Div. of Real Est., 536 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Brooks v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 578 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Vicaria v. Dep't of Health, 715 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

— 120.57(2)(a)(3) — 1 case

Vicaria v. Dep't of Health, 715 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

— 120.57(2)(a)(l) — 1 case

Brooks v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 578 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

— 120.57(2)(b) — 6 cases

Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 780 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2000).

Amend. to Rules of App. Proc., Civ. Proc., 887 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2004).

Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 827 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2002).

Gen. Dev. Corp. v. Div. of State Plan., Dept. of Adminis., 353 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 894 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2005).

— 120.57(3) — 26 cases

Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Corr., 72 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Manatee Cty. v. Fla. Pub. Emp. Relations, 387 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

NME Hospitals, Inc. v. Dep't of Health, 492 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Mae Volen Senior Ctr., Inc. v. AAA, 978 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Consultech of Jacksonville, Inc. v. DOH, 876 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

— 120.57(3)(b) — 4 cases

Advocacy Ctr. for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 721 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Madison Highlands, LLC v. Florida Hous. Fin. Corp., 220 So. 3d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

Bright House Networks v. AT & T Corp., 205 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

Marsh USA, Inc. v. Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Managment Servs., Inc., Etc., & the Sch. Bd. of Miami-dade Cnty., Florida (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).

— 120.57(3)(c) — 4 cases

Miami-dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. J. Ruiz Sch. Bus Serv., Inc., 874 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

AvMed Inc. v. State, Sch. Bd., 790 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Eyemed Vision Care, LLC v. State, Dep't of Mgmt. Servs., 964 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Evidence-Based Assocs. v. State, Dep't of Juv. Just., 107 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

— 120.57(3)(d) — 2 cases

GTECH v. State Dept. of Lottery, 737 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Hadi v. Liberty Behavioral Health Corp., 927 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

— 120.57(3)(e) — 3 cases

Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Corr., 72 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Mae Volen Senior Ctr., Inc. v. AAA, 978 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Eyemed Vision Care, LLC v. State, Dep't of Mgmt. Servs., 964 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

— 120.57(3)(f) — 7 cases

State Contracting v. Dept. of Transp., 709 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

GTECH v. State Dept. of Lottery, 737 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

J.D. v. Florida Dep't of Child. & Families, 114 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

AT & T Corp. v. State, Dep't of Mgmt. Servs., 201 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

Bright House Networks v. AT & T Corp., 205 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

— 120.57(3)(g) — 1 case

First Quality Home Care, Inc. v. All. for Aging, Inc., 14 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

— 120.57(4) — 10 cases

Sierra Club v. Julie Imanuel Brown, etc., 243 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 2018).

Citizens of the State of Florida, etc. v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 146 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2014).

Baker Cnty. Med. Servs., Inc. etc. v. State of Florida, Agency for Health etc., 178 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

South Florida Racing Ass'n v. State, Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 201 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

Fox v. Smith, 508 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

— 120.57(5) — 6 cases

Florida State Univ. v. Hatton, 672 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Mick v. Florida State Bd. of Dentistry, 338 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Metsch v. Univ. of Florida, 550 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

W. Frank Wells Nursing Home v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 979 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Mercado v. Florida Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2026).

— 120.57(5)(a) — 1 case

Charity v. Florida State Univ., 680 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

— 120.57(7) — 1 case

S. J. v. Malcolm Thomas (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

— 120.57(8) — 1 case

Walker v. State, Dept. of Transp., 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

— 120.57(9) — 1 case

Bajrangi v. Dept. of Bus. Reg., 561 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

— 120.57(Z) — 2 cases

His Kids Daycare v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 904 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Shimkus v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Constr. Indus. Licensing Bd., 906 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

— 120.57(b) — 2 cases

Davis v. Sch. Bd. of Gadsden Cnty., 646 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Asphalt Pavers, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP., 602 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

— 120.57(c) — 1 case

Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc. v. Vartec Telecom, Inc., 185 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (N.D. Fla. 2002).

— 120.57(e) — 1 case

GRABBA-LEAF, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l etc., 257 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

— 120.57(i) — 1 case

Orasan v. Agency for Health Care Admin., Bd. of Med., 668 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

— 120.57(j) — 4 cases

State Contracting v. Dept. of Transp., 709 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Pillsbury v. State, Dept. of Health, 744 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

Avalons Assisted Living, LLC v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 80 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Costin v. Famu Bd. of Trs., 972 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

— 120.57(k) — 2 cases

ANDELA v. Univ. of Miami, 692 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2010).

Boundy v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 994 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

— 120.57(l) — 1 case

Sledge v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 861 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

— 120.57(l)(3) — 2 cases

Rudloe v. Dep't of Env't Reg., 31 Fla. Supp. 2d 159 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'g 1988).

Rudloe v. Dep't of Env't Reg., 33 Fla. Supp. 2d 203 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'g 1988).

— 120.57(l)(a) — 16 cases

Sabates v. State of Florida Dep't of Health, 104 So. 3d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Sheffield v. Dep't of High. Saf. & Motor Vehs., 356 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

Campbell v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Div. of Real Est., 868 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Okaloosa-Walton Junior Coll. Bd. of Trs. v. Florida Pub. Employees Relations Comm'n, 372 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Gopman v. Dep't of Educ., 908 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

— 120.57(l)(b) — 90 cases

Booker Creek Pres., Inc. v. State, Dep't of Env't Reg., 415 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Citizens of the State of Florida, etc. v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 146 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 2014).

United States v. South Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., 847 F. Supp. 1567 (S.D. Fla. 1992).

Florida Power Corp. v. State, Dep't of Env't Reg., 638 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Koren v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 97 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 2012).

— 120.57(l)(b)(10) — 18 cases

Sabates v. State of Florida Dep't of Health, 104 So. 3d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Kriston v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 693 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Jess Parrish Mem'l Hosp. v. Florida Pub. Employees Relations Comm'n, 364 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Yhap, 680 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Tamburello v. State, Dep't of Mgmt. Servs., Div. of Ret., 657 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

— 120.57(l)(b)(2) — 1 case

Hitchcock & Driver Enter., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 652 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

— 120.57(l)(b)(4) — 4 cases

Rathmann v. Pacesetter Indus., Inc., 452 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).

Collier Dev. Corp. v. State, Dep't of Env't Prot., 685 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Revell v. Florida Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 371 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Cagan v. Bd. of Real Est., 409 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

— 120.57(l)(b)(5) — 3 cases

Florida Wildlife Fed'n v. Collier Cnty. (In Re Section 20 Land Grp., Ltd.), 252 B.R. 812 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000).

Hodge v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 432 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Westchester Pharmacy v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 236 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'g 1989).

— 120.57(l)(b)(6) — 3 cases

Rogers v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 364 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

Friedman v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., 211 So. 3d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Gretz v. Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 27 Fla. Supp. 2d 179 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'g 1987).

— 120.57(l)(b)(7) — 2 cases

State, Florida Dep't of Health v. North Florida Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc., 852 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

E.H. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 571 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

— 120.57(l)(b)(8) — 1 case

Davis Fam. Day Care Home v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 117 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

— 120.57(l)(b)(9) — 18 cases

City of Moorhead v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 343 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 1984).

Jess Parrish Mem'l Hosp. v. Florida Pub. Employees Relations Comm'n, 364 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

Ass'n of Condos., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 431 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

Hodge v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 432 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Humana, Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 492 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

— 120.57(l)(b)(ll) — 2 cases

Winslow v. Dep't of Prof'l & Occupational Reg., 348 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Collier Dev. Corp. v. State, Dep't of Env't Prot., 685 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

— 120.57(l)(c) — 9 cases

State Dep't of High. Saf. & Motor Vehs. v. Saxlehner, 96 So. 3d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Sheriff of Broward Cnty. v. Stanley, 50 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Durall v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 743 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Moffat v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 33 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Rivera v. Bd. of Trs. of the City of Tampa's Gen. Emp. Ret. Fund, 189 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

— 120.57(l)(d) — 1 case

Hadi v. Liberty Behavioral Health Corp., 927 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

— 120.57(l)(e) — 6 cases

Thomas Saunders v. Florida Dept. of Child. & Families, 185 So. 3d 1298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Florida Dep't of Fin. Servs., Div. of Workers' Comp., 156 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Toth v. South Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., 895 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Hadi v. Liberty Behavioral Health Corp., 927 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

GTO, Inc. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 783 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

— 120.57(l)(f) — 3 cases

Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 827 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2002).

Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 894 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2005).

Bright House Networks v. AT & T Corp., 205 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

— 120.57(l)(g) — 1 case

State, Florida Dep't of Health v. North Florida Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc., 852 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

— 120.57(l)(h) — 2 cases

Abbott Labs. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 15 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Davis Fam. Day Care Home v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 117 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

— 120.57(l)(i) — 14 cases

Florida Parole Comm'n v. Robert Taylor, 132 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2014).

Verleni v. Dep't of Health, 853 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Palm Constr. Co. of West Florida v. Dep't of Fin. Servs., Div. etc., 153 So. 3d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Charlotte Cnty. v. IMC Phosphates Co., 18 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Viering v. Florida Comm'n on Human Relations ex rel. Watson, 109 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

— 120.57(l)(i)(1996) — 1 case

Campbell v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Div. of Real Est., 868 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

— 120.57(l)(j) — 9 cases

Headley v. City of Miami, 118 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Davis Fam. Day Care Home v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 117 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Vicaria v. Dep't of Health, 715 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Florida Dep't of Child. & Families v. Davis Fam. Day Care Home, 160 So. 3d 854 (Fla. 2015).

Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cnty. v. Noble, 384 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

— 120.57(l)(k) — 9 cases

J.D. v. Florida Dep't of Child. & Families, 114 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Bridlewood Grp. Home v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 136 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Rupp v. Dep't of Health, 963 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Withers v. Blomberg, 41 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Duke's Steakhouse Ft. Myers, Inc. v. G5 Props., LLC, 106 So. 3d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

— 120.57(l)(m) — 2 cases

In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 84 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2011).

In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 75 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 2011).

— 120.57(lXb) — 1 case

Booker Creek Pres., Inc. v. State, Dep't of Env't Reg., 415 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.