Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 366.10 (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
366.10 Judicial review.—As authorized by s. 3(b)(2), Art. V of the State Constitution, the Supreme Court shall review, upon petition, any action of the commission relating to rates or service of utilities providing electric or gas service.
History.—s. 10, ch. 26545, 1951; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 11, 16, ch. 80-35; s. 2, ch. 81-318; ss. 20, 22, ch. 89-292; s. 4, ch. 91-429.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: City of Plant City v. Mayo, 337 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1976).
City of Plant City v. Mayo, 337 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1976). “The municipalities argue that they are "persons in interest" under Section 366.10, Florida Statutes (1973), which provides: "Any public utility or any person in interest dissatisfied with any order of the commission may have it reviewed by the supreme court by certiorari.”
Sierra Club v. Julie Imanuel Brown, etc., 243 So. 3d 903 (Fla. 2018). “; § 366.10, Fla. Stat. (2017). For the following reasons, we hold that the Commission applied the appropriate standard of review in the Final Order, and competent, substantial evidence supports that decision.”
Occidental Chem. Co. v. Mayo, 351 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1977). “, and § 366.10, Fla. Stat. (1975). [2] Allocation of overhead and the cost of multiple use facilities, such as transmission lines, was particularly difficult.”
Shevin Ex Rel. State v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 333 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1976). “V, § 3(b)(3); § 366.10, Fla. Stat. (1973); § 120.68, Fla.”
City of Tallahassee v. Mann, 411 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1981). “; § 366.10, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1980). The essence of the city's petition is that the commission has no jurisdiction of the subject matter.”
Storey v. Mayo, 217 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1968). “; Fla. Stat. § 366.10 (1967), F.S.A. The petitioners contend that the notice of the hearing was insufficient; that the proposed agreement is contrary to the public interest and is in restraint of trade; and that it denies to them both equal protection and due process of law.”
Shevin v. Yarborough, 274 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1973). “, and Fla. Stat. § 366.10 , F.S.A. The Commission undertook on its own initiative, without complaint or application of any party, an investigation of the rates of Florida Power & Light, by Order No.”
Gen. Tel. Co. of Florida v. Carter, 115 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1959). “55% of the intrastate rate base. [3] Section 364.20, F.”
Citizens of Florida v. Mayo, 316 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1975). “I conclude, however, as did the majority here, that this was the intent of the Legislature in enacting Section 366.”
Maule Indus., Inc. v. Mayo, 342 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1976). “We have jurisdiction for review pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, and Section 366.10, Florida Statutes (1975). FACTS On August 2, 1974, Florida Power and Light Company ("FP&L") petitioned the Commission for a permanent rate increase of…”
Florida Power Corp. v. Hawkins, 367 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1979). “Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution; Section 366.10 Florida Statutes (1977). *1013 Before beginning operation of its nuclear power plant at Crystal River (Crystal River Unit # 3; CR# 3), Florida Power presented the Commission with suggested rate adjustments.”
City Gas Co. v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 501 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1987). “1 ; § 366.10, Fla.Stat. (1985). 2 The commission’s action is challenged on the grounds that it was in excess of statutory authority and that the underlying factual determinations were not supported by competent, substantial evidence.”
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.