Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 120.68 (2025)

Judicial review.

✓ 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

120.68 Judicial review.—

(1)(a) A party who is adversely affected by final agency action is entitled to judicial review.

(b) A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate order of the agency or of an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings is immediately reviewable if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.

(2)(a) Judicial review shall be sought in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides or as otherwise provided by law. All proceedings shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal or petition for review in accordance with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure within 30 days after the rendition of the order being appealed. If the appeal is of an order rendered in a proceeding initiated under s. 120.56, the agency whose rule is being challenged shall transmit a copy of the notice of appeal to the committee.

(b) When proceedings under this chapter are consolidated for final hearing and the parties to the consolidated proceeding seek review of final or interlocutory orders in more than one district court of appeal, the courts of appeal are authorized to transfer and consolidate the review proceedings. The court may transfer such appellate proceedings on its own motion, upon motion of a party to one of the appellate proceedings, or by stipulation of the parties to the appellate proceedings. In determining whether to transfer a proceeding, the court may consider such factors as the interrelationship of the parties and the proceedings, the desirability of avoiding inconsistent results in related matters, judicial economy, and the burden on the parties of reproducing the record for use in multiple appellate courts.

(3) The filing of the petition does not itself stay enforcement of the agency decision, but if the agency decision has the effect of suspending or revoking a license, supersedeas shall be granted as a matter of right upon such conditions as are reasonable, unless the court, upon petition of the agency, determines that a supersedeas would constitute a probable danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the state. The agency also may grant a stay upon appropriate terms, but, whether or not the action has the effect of suspending or revoking a license, a petition to the agency for a stay is not a prerequisite to a petition to the court for supersedeas. In any event the court shall specify the conditions, if any, upon which the stay or supersedeas is granted.

(4) Judicial review of any agency action shall be confined to the record transmitted and any additions made thereto in accordance with paragraph (7)(a).

(5) The record for judicial review shall be compiled in accordance with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

(6)(a) The reviewing court’s decision may be mandatory, prohibitory, or declaratory in form, and it shall provide whatever relief is appropriate irrespective of the original form of the petition. The court may:

1. Order agency action required by law; order agency exercise of discretion when required by law; set aside agency action; remand the case for further agency proceedings; or decide the rights, privileges, obligations, requirements, or procedures at issue between the parties; and

2. Order such ancillary relief as the court finds necessary to redress the effects of official action wrongfully taken or withheld.

(b) If the court sets aside agency action or remands the case to the agency for further proceedings, it may make such interlocutory order as the court finds necessary to preserve the interests of any party and the public pending further proceedings or agency action.

(7) The court shall remand a case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the court’s decision or set aside agency action, as appropriate, when it finds that:

(a) There has been no hearing prior to agency action and the reviewing court finds that the validity of the action depends upon disputed facts;

(b) The agency’s action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record of a hearing conducted pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57; however, the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact;

(c) The fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure;

(d) The agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and a correct interpretation compels a particular action; or

(e) The agency’s exercise of discretion was:

1. Outside the range of discretion delegated to the agency by law;

2. Inconsistent with agency rule;

3. Inconsistent with officially stated agency policy or a prior agency practice, if deviation therefrom is not explained by the agency; or

4. Otherwise in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision;

but the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency on an issue of discretion.

(8) Unless the court finds a ground for setting aside, modifying, remanding, or ordering agency action or ancillary relief under a specified provision of this section, it shall affirm the agency’s action.

(9) A petition challenging an agency rule as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority shall not be instituted pursuant to this section, except to review an order entered pursuant to a proceeding under s. 120.56 or s. 120.57(1)(e)1. or (2)(b) or an agency’s findings of immediate danger, necessity, and procedural fairness prerequisite to the adoption of an emergency rule pursuant to s. 120.54(4), unless the sole issue presented by the petition is the constitutionality of a rule and there are no disputed issues of fact.

(10) If an administrative law judge’s final order depends on any fact found by the administrative law judge, the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative law judge as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact. The court shall, however, set aside the final order of the administrative law judge or remand the case to the administrative law judge, if it finds that the final order depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record of the proceeding.

History.—s. 1, ch. 74-310; s. 13, ch. 76-131; s. 38, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 11, ch. 78-425; s. 4, ch. 84-173; s. 7, ch. 87-385; s. 36, ch. 90-302; s. 6, ch. 91-30; s. 1, ch. 91-191; s. 10, ch. 92-166; s. 35, ch. 96-159; s. 15, ch. 97-176; s. 8, ch. 2003-94; s. 5, ch. 2016-116.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,267 cases (88 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · 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 13× “57 requires agency explanation of its discretionary action affecting a party's substantial interests, and Section 120.68 subjects that explanation to judicial review.”

Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996). · cites it 14× “erns: (1) appeals as of right to the supreme court; (2) certiorari proceedings before the supreme court seeking direct review of administrative action (for example, Industrial Relations Commission and Public Service Commission); (3) appeals as of right to a district court of…”

Florida Real Est. Com'n v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1978). · cites it 13× “Section 120.68 provides much more detailed and precise guidelines than its predecessor as to the scope of judicial review of agency action.”

Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 696 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1996). · cites it 14× “erns: (1) appeals as of right to the supreme court; (2) certiorari proceedings before the supreme court seeking direct review of administrative action (for example, Industrial Relations Commission and Public Service Commission); (3) appeals as of right to a district court of…”

Martin Cnty. Conservation All. v. Martin Cnty., 73 So. 3d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). · cites it 24× “1st DCA 2010) (quoting § 120.68, Fla. Stat. (2009)). We then ordered Appellants and their counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed upon them pursuant to section 57.”

Citizens of the State of Florida v. Art Graham, etc., 213 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2017). · cites it 27× “57 requires agency explanation of its discretionary action affecting a party’s substantial interests, and Section 120.68 subjects that explanation to judicial review.”

ST. v. Falls Chase Spec. Taxing Dist., 424 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). · cites it 13× “In this regard, DER contends Falls Chase should have first applied to DER for dredge and fill permits raising the jurisdictional issue in that proceeding followed, if necessary, by administrative appeal and appeal to this court under Section 120.68. It is also suggested that the…”

Florida Dept. of Agric. & Consum. Servs. v. CITY OF POMPANA BEACH, 792 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). · cites it 12× “They argue that section 120.68, Florida Statutes (2000), *545 does not provide an avenue of judicial review, because they have not been adversely affected by agency action.”

Daniels v. Florida Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 401 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). · cites it 10× “In our judgment, a jurisdictional base has been provided, subsequent to Moore , by Section 120.68 of the Florida Statutes (1975).”

Graham v. Estuary Props., Inc., 399 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1981). · cites it 8× “§ 120.68(10), Fla. Stat. (1977). For the reasons stated above we hold that the district court incorrectly reversed the adjudicatory commission's finding that the proposed DRI would have an adverse impact on the region.”

Griffith v. Florida Parole & Prob. Com'n, 485 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1986). · cites it 12× “In 1981, Griffith sought judicial review of an allegedly improper presumptive parole release date (PPRD) under section 120.68, Florida Statutes (1981). Griffith *819 filed the appeal within the 30-day period during which the First District Court of Appeal entertained belated…”

Baillie v. Dept. of Nat. Resources, 632 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). · cites it 22× “Brought under section 120.68, Florida Statutes, this appeal from a state agency's adoption of an administrative rule, [1] raises the question whether section 120.”

Show all 1,267 citing cases →

— 120.68(1) — 243 cases

Env't Confed. of Sw. Fl., Inc. v. Imc Phosphates, Inc., 857 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

State, Com'n on Ethics v. Sullivan, 430 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996). “erns: (1) appeals as of right to the supreme court; (2) certiorari proceedings before the supreme court seeking direct review of administrative action (for example, Industrial Relations Commission and Public Service Commission); (3) appeals as of right to a district court of…”

Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 696 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1996). “erns: (1) appeals as of right to the supreme court; (2) certiorari proceedings before the supreme court seeking direct review of administrative action (for example, Industrial Relations Commission and Public Service Commission); (3) appeals as of right to a district court of…”

Biscayne Bay Pilots, Inc. v. Florida Caribbean-Cruise Ass'n, 160 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

— 120.68(1)(a) — 31 cases

Citizens of the State of Florida v. Art Graham, etc., 213 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2017). “57 requires agency explanation of its discretionary action affecting a party’s substantial interests, and Section 120.68 subjects that explanation to judicial review.”

State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Michael Lee Smathers, II, 264 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

Cuenca v. State Bd. of Admin., 259 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

FRS-Fast Reliable Seaway, LLC. v. Bd. of Pilot Comm'rs of Fla., 261 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

— 120.68(1)(b) — 7 cases

BAM Trading Servs., Inc., D/B/A Binance.US v. State of Florida, Off. of Fin. Reg. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

BAM Trading Servs., Inc., d/b/a Binance.US v. State of Florida Off. of Fin. Reg. (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).

State of Florida, Agency For Health Care Admin. v. Alfred Ivan Murciano, M.D. (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

Pinnacle Hous. Grp., LLC v. Florida Hous. Fin. Corp., 239 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Dep't of Health v. Rasul (Fla. 1st DCA 2024).

— 120.68(10) — 172 cases

McDonald v. Dept. of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “57 requires agency explanation of its discretionary action affecting a party's substantial interests, and Section 120.68 subjects that explanation to judicial review.”

Graham v. Estuary Props., Inc., 399 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1981). “§ 120.68(10), Fla. Stat. (1977). For the reasons stated above we hold that the district court incorrectly reversed the adjudicatory commission's finding that the proposed DRI would have an adverse impact on the region.”

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

Doyle v. Fla. Unemp. Appeals Com'n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

Gross v. Dep't of Health, 819 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

— 120.68(11) — 2 cases

Groves-Watkins Const. v. State, Dept. of Transp., 511 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

— 120.68(12) — 53 cases

Florida Real Est. Com'n v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1978). “Section 120.68 provides much more detailed and precise guidelines than its predecessor as to the scope of judicial review of agency action.”

State, Dept. of Ins. v. Ins. Servs. Off., 434 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

Polk v. Sch. Bd. of Polk Cnty., 373 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Clark v. Dept. of Prof'l Reg., 463 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

— 120.68(12)(a) — 1 case

Gen. Dev. Util., Inc. v. Hawkins, 357 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1978).

— 120.68(12)(b) — 17 cases

State Dept. of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1981).

Gen. Tel. Co. of Fla. v. FLA. PUB. SERV. COM'N, 446 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1984).

Amos v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs., 444 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

Florida Waterworks v. FLORIDA PUB. SER. COM'N, 473 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

— 120.68(12)(c) — 10 cases

Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1984).

Albrecht v. State, 407 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

Coulter v. Davin, 373 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Bb v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv., 542 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

— 120.68(12)(d) — 2 cases

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

Manasota-88, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Env't Reg., 567 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

— 120.68(13) — 12 cases

Krueger v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 555 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

COUCH CONST. CO., INC. v. Dep't of Transp., 361 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

Aquino v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 430 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

— 120.68(13)(a) — 27 cases

Myers v. Hawkins, 362 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1978).

Sans Souci v. Div. Of Fla. Land Sales & Condos., 448 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Smith v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Serv., 522 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

Daniels v. Florida Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 401 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “In our judgment, a jurisdictional base has been provided, subsequent to Moore , by Section 120.68 of the Florida Statutes (1975).”

Rice v. Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative, 386 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

— 120.68(13)(a)(1) — 3 cases

Lewis v. Dept. of Prof'l Reg., 410 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).

Bekiempis v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 421 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).

Dep't of High. Saf. & Motor Vehs. v. Fields, 418 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

— 120.68(14) — 5 cases

Florida Canners Ass'n v. State, Dept. of Citrus, 371 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Mayo, 357 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1978).

Harness Racing, Inc. v. Rutledge, 399 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Arahill v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 420 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

— 120.68(15) — 1 case

Baillie v. Dept. of Nat. Resources, 632 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “Brought under section 120.68, Florida Statutes, this appeal from a state agency's adoption of an administrative rule, [1] raises the question whether section 120.”

— 120.68(2) — 60 cases

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Gen. Serv. v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Sheley v. Florida Parole Com'n, 703 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

— 120.68(2)(a) — 21 cases

Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Reaume, 937 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Florida Dept. of Agric. & Consum. Servs. v. CITY OF POMPANA BEACH, 792 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “They argue that section 120.68, Florida Statutes (2000), *545 does not provide an avenue of judicial review, because they have not been adversely affected by agency action.”

Parlato v. Secret Oaks Owners Ass'n, 793 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

State, Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Chamberlain v. Manasala, 982 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

State Farm Mut. Auto. v. Gibbons, 860 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

— 120.68(3) — 42 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).

— 120.68(3)(a) — 3 cases

Msq Props. v. Florida Dhrs, 626 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

GTE Florida Inc. v. Clark, 668 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1996).

Liberty Care Plan v. Dep't of Ins., 710 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

— 120.68(4) — 8 cases

City of Plant City v. Mayo, 337 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1976).

Arza v. Florida Elections Com'n., 907 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Resort Sales Intern., Inc. v. FLA DEPT. OF BUS., 795 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Florida Ass'n of Homes & Servs. for the Aging, Inc. d/b/a LeadingAge Florida v. Agency for Health Care Admin., Dep't of Elder Affairs, 252 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

— 120.68(5) — 2 cases

Pasco Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Pub. Employees Relations Comm'n, 336 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Sch. Bd. of Lee Cty. v. Malbon, 341 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

— 120.68(5)(a) — 4 cases

Florida Dept. of Corr. v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Occidental Chem. Co. v. Mayo, 351 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1977).

Lassiter Const. v. Sch. Bd. for Palm Beach, 395 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, Dep't of Bus. Reg., 376 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

— 120.68(5)(b) — 2 cases

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

Manasota-88, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Env't Reg., 567 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

— 120.68(5)(c) — 6 cases

Peoples Bank, Etc. v. State, Dept. of B. & F., 395 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1981).

Pinacoteca Corp. v. DEPT. OF Bus. REG., 580 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Harris v. Florida Real Est. Com'n, 358 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

Pasco Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Pub. Employees Relations Comm'n, 336 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

— 120.68(6) — 19 cases

Denney v. Conner, 462 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

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

Florida Dept. of Transp. v. JWC Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

Rice v. Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative, 386 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

Castillo v. Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret., 593 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

— 120.68(6)(a) — 14 cases

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

Marion Cnty. v. Dep't of Juv. Just., 215 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

Agency for Health Care v. Mount Sinai Med., 690 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

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

— 120.68(6)(b) — 1 case

Pou v. Dep't of Ins. & Treasurer, 707 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

— 120.68(6)(e) — 2 cases

Nordheim v. Dept. of Env. Prot., 719 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

— 120.68(7) — 125 cases

Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Moreland Ex Rel. Moreland v. Agency for Persons With Disabilities, 19 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Gross v. Dep't of Health, 819 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

— 120.68(7)(a) — 20 cases

Brown v. State, Dept. of Fin. Servs., 899 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Nicks v. Dept. of Bus. & Prof. Reg., 957 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Unimed Lab'y, Inc. v. AHCA, 715 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Desmond D. Dillion v. Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Prog., 189 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Baycare Health Sys., Inc. v. AHCA, 940 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

— 120.68(7)(b) — 79 cases

Payne v. City of Miami, 52 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

SW Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Save the Manatee Club, Inc., 773 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Peace River/Manasota Reg'l Water Supply Auth. v. IMC Phosphates Co., 18 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

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

Robert K. Robinson v. Comm'n on Ethics, 242 So. 3d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

— 120.68(7)(c) — 43 cases

Hames v. City of Miami Firefighters', 980 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Delgado v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 237 So. 3d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

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

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

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

— 120.68(7)(d) — 74 cases

Metro. Dade Cnty. v. State Dep't of Env't Prot., 714 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Brown v. State, Com'n on Ethics, 969 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

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

McQuade v. Florida Dep't of Corr., 51 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Parlato v. Secret Oaks Owners Ass'n, 793 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

— 120.68(7)(e) — 27 cases

SW Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Save the Manatee Club, Inc., 773 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Atlantis at Perdido Ass'n, Inc. v. Warner, 932 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

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

Robert K. Robinson v. Comm'n on Ethics, 242 So. 3d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Donna Leah T. Brewer, LPN v. Florida Dep't of Health, Bd. of Nursing, 268 So. 3d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

— 120.68(7)(e)(2) — 1 case

Slusher v. Martin Cnty., 859 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

— 120.68(7)(e)(3) — 1 case

Ramsey Zimmerman v. State of Florida, Florida Gaming Control Comm'n (Fla. 5th DCA 2024).

— 120.68(7)(e)(4) — 2 cases

Collier Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs v. Fwcc, 993 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Manuel v. DCFS, 880 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

— 120.68(8) — 102 cases

Carter v. Dept. of Pro. Reg., 633 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1994).

Dep't of Bus. Reg., Etc. v. Hyman, 417 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1982).

Bio-Med. Applications of Clearwater, Inc. v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERV., 370 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Dept. of Bus., 393 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

— 120.68(9) — 25 cases

Willette v. Air Prods., 700 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

Dep't of Bus. Reg., Etc. v. Hyman, 417 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1982).

Pasco Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Florida Pub. Emp. Rel. Comm., 353 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

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

Nat'l Ind., Inc. v. Com'n on Human Relations, 527 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

— 120.68(9)(a) — 8 cases

City of Plant City v. Mayo, 337 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1976).

Warning Saf. Lights v. Dept. of Rev., 678 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

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

LeDew v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 456 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Hyman v. State, Dept. of Bus. Reg., 399 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

— 120.68(9)(b) — 4 cases

Lewis v. Lakeland Health Care Ctr., 685 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Sagaert v. State, Dept. of Labor, Etc., 418 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Surf Attractions v. Dept. of Bus. Reg., 480 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Leonard v. Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret., 352 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

— 120.68(9Xb) — 1 case

Courtelis Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 415 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

— 120.68(l)(a) — 1 case

— 120.68(l)(b) — 1 case

Zane Paul Webber v. State of Florida, Dept. of Bus. etc., 198 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

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.