FLA. FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION v. Caribbean …, No. 1D00-1389
| Decision Date | 12 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D00-1389, No. 1D00-1804. |
| Parties | FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, Appellant, v. CARIBBEAN CONSERVATION CORPORATION, INC., et al., Appellees. State of Florida, ex rel., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Appellant, v. Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Inc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James V. Antista, General Counsel, and Sharman M. Herrin, Assistant General Counsel, Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Attorneys for Appellant Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Thomas E. Warner, Solicitor General, and T. Kent Wetherell, II, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Attorneys for Appellant State of Florida, ex rel., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General.
Gary P. Sams, Dan R. Stengle, and Gary v. Perko of Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A., Tallahassee, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Marine Industries Association of Florida, Inc. S. Ansley Samson and David G. Guest of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Tallahassee, Attorneys for Appellees Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Inc., et al.
This is an appeal of a Final Summary Declaratory Judgment in which the trial court found portions of Chapter 99-245, Laws of Florida, to be unconstitutional. At issue is whether regulatory authority over endangered marine life arises under Article IV, section 9, and Article XII, section 23, of the Florida Constitution,1 or whether such authority was conferred under Chapter 99-245, Laws of Florida.2 We reverse and hold that the Legislature's delegation of regulatory authority over endangered marine life in Chapter 99-245, Laws of Florida, is constitutional, and subject to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.3
Whether a state statute is constitutional is a pure issue of law, subject to de novo review. State, Dep't. of Ins. v. Keys Title and Abstract Co., Inc., 741 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999),
rev. denied, 770 So.2d 158 (Fla.2000). In our review of this case we have considered the functions and authority granted to the GFFC, MCF, and DEP, prior to the creation of the FWCC.
The trial court correctly determined that interpretation of Revision 5 is required to discern exactly what authority was transferred to the FWCC. However we disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the MFC had (and the FWCC now has) constitutional authority to establish rules regarding endangered species.
The trial court primarily relied on the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Davis, 556 So.2d 1104 (Fla.1990), to decide what authority was vested in the MFC and transferred to the FWCC by Revision 5. The trial court applied Davis too broadly.4 A careful review of Davis shows it does not hold that the MFC had general concurrent authority with other agencies to regulate endangered species. Instead, that case holds the MFC had only incidental regulatory authority to establish rules that might impact upon endangered marine species (such as those pertaining to gear specifications), and that incidental authority did not usurp or affect the statutory authority specifically assigned to other agencies.
Because we hold the Legislature's delegation of regulatory authority in Chapter 99-245 is constitutional, the Final Summary Declaratory Judgment is REVERSED.
1. As amended in the November 1998 general election, and referred to on the ballot as "Revision 5".
2. If regulatory authority is conferred by statute in Chapter 99-245, it is subject to rulemaking procedures pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
3. Under Revision 5, regulatory authority over endangered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins
... ... Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 837 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), for the reasons stated in its ... See Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v. Caribbean ... by the Railroad and Public Utilities Commission to a statute authorizing the City of Pensacola to ... ...
-
Sunset Harbour Condominium Association v. Robbins, No. SC03-520 (FL 7/7/2005)
... ... Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins , 837 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), for the reasons stated in its ... See Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v. Caribbean ... by the Railroad and Public Utilities Commission to a statute authorizing the City of Pensacola to ... ...
-
City of Miami v. McGrath
... ... City of Miami, 789 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ... We have jurisdiction. See art ... See Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v. Caribbean ... ...
-
Marshall v. State, 4D03-2797.
... ... Fla. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v ... ...
-
"Intervene" means "intervene": the Florida Legislature revises citizen standing under F.S. s. 403.412(5).
...Conservation Corp., Inc. v. Harris, Case No. 99-4871 (2d Cir.) (Final Summary Judgment entered Feb. 14, 2000), aff'd per curiam 789 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. (38) HB 819 [section] 2(2002); SB 270 [section] 2(2002). The original bills also would have made clear that the act's provisions r......