Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 253.763 (2025)
Judicial review relating to permits and licenses.
✓ 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
253.763 Judicial review relating to permits and licenses.—
(1) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) “Agency” means any official, officer, commission, authority, council, committee, department, division, bureau, board, section, or other unit or entity of state government.
(b) “Permit” means any permit or license required by this chapter.
(2) Any person substantially affected by a final action of any agency with respect to a permit may seek review within 90 days of the rendering of such decision and request monetary damages and other relief in the circuit court in the judicial circuit in which the affected property is located; however, circuit court review shall be confined solely to determining whether final agency action is an unreasonable exercise of the state’s police power constituting a taking without just compensation. Review of final agency action for the purpose of determining whether the action is in accordance with existing statutes or rules and based on competent substantial evidence shall proceed in accordance with chapter 120.
(3) If the court determines the decision reviewed is an unreasonable exercise of the state’s police power constituting a taking without just compensation, the court shall remand the matter to the agency which shall, within a reasonable time:
(a) Agree to issue the permit;
(b) Agree to pay appropriate monetary damages; however, in determining the amount of compensation to be paid, consideration shall be given by the court to any enhancement to the value of the land attributable to governmental action; or
(c) Agree to modify its decision to avoid an unreasonable exercise of police power.
(4) The agency shall submit a statement of its agreed-upon action to the court in the form of a proposed order. If the action is a reasonable exercise of police power, the court shall enter its final order approving the proposed order. If the agency fails to submit a proposed order within a reasonable time not to exceed 90 days which specifies an action that is a reasonable exercise of police power, the court may order the agency to perform any of the alternatives specified in subsection (3).
(5) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs to the agency or substantially affected person, whichever prevails.
(6) The provisions of this section are cumulative and shall not be deemed to abrogate any other remedies provided by law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1981–2013 · leading case: Bowen v. Fla. Dept. of Envtl. Reg., 448 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Bowen v. Fla. Dept. of Envtl. Reg., 448 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “57 administrative hearing prior to final agency action a prerequisite to bringing an inverse condemnation action in the circuit court? Appellants argue that Key Haven does not apply since it arose before section 253.763, which expressly authorizes the inverse condemnation action…”
Key Haven Associated Enter., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Imp. Trust Fund, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1982). “We find that this procedure exists independent of the specific statutory authority now found in section 253.763(2), Florida Statutes (1979), which became effective on May 29, 1978, after Key Haven filed suit in the circuit court in this case.”
Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1984). “It is too broad a leap to take the words of a statute which provide for remand if the action is found to be in violation of the constitution and interpret them to mean that any constitutional issue must be raised there or be forever barred.”
Albrecht v. State, 407 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). “That is the procedure now expressly recognized by section 253.763, Florida Statutes (effective May 29, 1978), and it was, I submit, the proper procedure long before then.”
Dept. of Agric. & Consum. Serv. v. Mid-florida Growers, Inc., 521 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1988). “Although the Department correctly contends that the propriety of an agency's action may not be challenged in an inverse condemnation proceeding, section 253.763(2), Florida Statutes (1983), the fact that the action was authorized pursuant to agency rules does not, as noted…”
Key Haven Associated Enter., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 400 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “Appellants' right to appeal in the permitting proceeding also expired prior to the effective date of Florida Statutes, Section 253.763, [3] which provides a remedy for taking of private property through the permitting process.”
Hillcrest Prop., LLP v. Pasco Cnty., 731 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (M.D. Fla. 2010). “763 (2) (“Any person substantially affected by a final action of any agency with respect to a permit may seek review within 90 days of the rendering of such decision and request monetary relief in the circuit court .”
Bowen v. Florida Dep't of Env't Reg., 448 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). “(Albrecht also arose prior to the enactment of section 253.763.) We see no indication now that the plain meaning of “final agency action,” as used in the statute, should be extended to include an appeal to TIIF.”
Dept. of Agr. & Consum. Serv. v. Polk, 568 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1990). “The Department also contends that the trial court determined that the burning of Polk's trees was erroneous and not a proper exercise of the police power and, because of this determination, Polk's remedy is a tort action for negligent destruction rather than an inverse…”
Dep't of Agric. & Consum. Servs. v. Polk, 568 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1990). “The Department also contends that the trial court determined that the burning of Polk’s trees was erroneous and not a proper exercise of the police power and, because of this determination, Polk’s remedy is a tort action for negligent destruction rather than an inverse…”
Krieter v. Chiles, 595 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). “The appellant's allegations were brought under the provisions of Section 253.763, Florida Statutes (1989), and the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida.”
Griffin v. St. Johns River Water, Etc., 409 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). “However, none of these cases consider the later applicable statutes, section 253.763 or section 373.617. In view of the statutes and the case law, we understand why appellant felt it was necessary to protect his rights by pursuing all three avenues of appeal simultaneously.”
— 253.763(2) — 10 cases
Bowen v. Fla. Dept. of Envtl. Reg., 448 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “57 administrative hearing prior to final agency action a prerequisite to bringing an inverse condemnation action in the circuit court? Appellants argue that Key Haven does not apply since it arose before section 253.763, which expressly authorizes the inverse condemnation action…”
Key Haven Associated Enter., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Imp. Trust Fund, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1982). “We find that this procedure exists independent of the specific statutory authority now found in section 253.763(2), Florida Statutes (1979), which became effective on May 29, 1978, after Key Haven filed suit in the circuit court in this case.”
Dept. of Agric. & Consum. Serv. v. Mid-florida Growers, Inc., 521 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1988). “Although the Department correctly contends that the propriety of an agency's action may not be challenged in an inverse condemnation proceeding, section 253.763(2), Florida Statutes (1983), the fact that the action was authorized pursuant to agency rules does not, as noted…”
Key Haven Associated Enter., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 400 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “Appellants' right to appeal in the permitting proceeding also expired prior to the effective date of Florida Statutes, Section 253.763, [3] which provides a remedy for taking of private property through the permitting process.”
Dept. of Agr. & Consum. Serv. v. Polk, 568 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1990). “The Department also contends that the trial court determined that the burning of Polk's trees was erroneous and not a proper exercise of the police power and, because of this determination, Polk's remedy is a tort action for negligent destruction rather than an inverse…”
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.