DONALD GREGORY RUCK, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appeal dismissed as moot where the Board of Professional Engineers subsequently reviewed appellant's engineering program pursuant to the correct administrative rule, rendering the original denial decision no longer subject to effective appellate relief.
An appeal challenging a denial of professional licensure becomes moot when the administrative agency subsequently reviews the application under the correct legal standard before appellate decision, and the court will not decide the case on the merits solely to determine attorney's fees eligibility.
[1] An administrative appeal becomes moot when the agency subsequently reviews the application under the correct legal standard before appellate decision, and courts will not…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald Gregory Ruck applied for licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement based on an engineering physics program he completed. The Board in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mootness Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Donald Gregory Ruck, appeals a final order of the Board of Professional Engineers (“Board”) denying his Application for Licensure by Endorsement, raising four issues on appeal. In each issue, appellant argues a different reason why the Board erroneously denied his application on the ground that the engineering physics program that he completed was not accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Committee of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (“ABET”) without evaluating the program. He asserts that the Board should have instead evaluated the program pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, which provides the standards under which the Board evaluates foreign engineering programs, to which ABET accreditation is not available. As appellant concedes, because the Board has now reviewed the program pursuant to that rule, this appeal has been rendered moot. See Lund v. Dep’t of Health, 708 So. 2d 645, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The general rule in Florida is that a case on appeal becomes moot when a change in circumstances occurs before an appellate court’s decision, thereby making it impossible for the court to provide effectual relief.”). As we did in Lund and for the reasons stated therein, we reject appellant’s argument that we should decide the case on the merits for the sole purpose of determining his right to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes. See 708 So. 2d at 646-47.
Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as moot and deny appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.
KAHN, BENTON, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marsh USA, Inc. v. Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Managment Servs., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…a. 1st DCA 1998) (“[T]he possibility of an attorney’s fee award under section 120.595(5) is not a collateral legal consequence which would preclude dismissal when the death of a party renders the appeal moot.”); Ruck v. State, Bd. of Pro. Eng’rs, 956 So. 2d 469, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“[W]e reject appellant’s argument that we 3 should decide the case on the merits for the sole purpose of determining his right to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes.”). Hence, we dismis…
Authorities Cited
- Lund v. Dep't OF Health, 708 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)