DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
OKALOOSA COUNTY AND NASSAU COUNTY, PETITIONERS, AND BAY COUNTY AND PINELLAS COUNTY, INTERVENORS, AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, INTERVENOR, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the ALJ correctly determined DJJ's interpretations of 'final court disposition' and 'actual costs' were invalid exercises of authority.
The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) sought review of an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) Final Order. The ALJ found DJJ's rules regarding cost sh…
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 In Pari Materia cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) seeks review of an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Final Order. The Final Order declared certain DJJ rules relating to cost sharing for secure detention invalid exercises of DJJ’s authority; specifically, DJJ’s interpretations of “final court disposition” and “actual costs.” We find the ALJ correctly determined that DJJ’s interpretations were improper.
If the language of a statute “is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the statute should be given its plain meaning.” Fla. Hosp. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 823 So.2d 844, 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Using the basic tenet of in pari materia to construe together statutes relating to the same or similar subject matter does not imply ambiguity. See Fla. Dep’t. of Envtl. Prot. v. ContractPoint Fla. Parks, LLC, 986 So.2d 1260, 1265-66 (Fla.2008) (not resorting to statutory construction, but acknowledging entire sections must be read together); Smith v. Crawford, 645 So.2d 513, 522-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“The legislative intent being plainly expressed, so that the act read by itself or in connection with other statutes pertaining to the same subject is clear, certain, and unambiguous, the courts have only the simple and obvious duty to enforce the law according to its terms.”) (quoting State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1973)).
Here, a plain reading of “final court disposition” cannot, as DJJ asserts, limit the term to “commitment.” Likewise, “actual costs” cannot mean a figure derived through, as counsel for DJJ put it, a “complicated” formulaic scheme. A plain reading of this clear term indicates otherwise. We need not comment further, other than to commend the ALJ’s extensive and accurate analysis of the rules in question.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
CLARK and MARSTILLER, JJ, and BOLES, W. JOEL, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marion Cnty. v. Dep't OF Juv. Just., 215 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…and that the rules in place at the time were invalid and resulted in overcharges to the counties. See Okaloosa Cty. et al. v. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, DOAH Case No, 12-0891RX (Final Order July 17, 2012); Dep’t of Juvenile Justice v. Okaloosa Cty., 113 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Okaloosa I) (affirming the DOAH final order). See also Okaloosa Cty. v. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 131 So. 3d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Joint Stipulations Following the decisions in the rule challenge, in 2013, the parties ente…
-
Pinellas Cnty. v. Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just., 188 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…eral counties challenged the Department’s calculation of costs before the Division of Administrative Hearings. On appeal, we held that the Department’s interpretation of the cost-sharing law was erroneous. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice v. Okaloosa Cty., 113 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“Okaloosa I”). In a later-filed appeal controlled by Okaloosa I, the Department acknowledged error, whereupon we reversed and remanded “with instructions to the Department to adopt the [administrative law judge’s] recommended or…
-
Okaloosa Cnty. v. Dep't OF Juv. Just., 131 So. 3d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ermination regarding the agency’s interpretation of section 985.686, and the final order granted these exceptions. After entry of the final order in the instant case, this Court issued an opinion in Department of Juvenile Justice v. Okaloosa County, 113 So. 3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), affirming a different ALJ’s recommended order which, the parties agree, utilized essentially the same reasoning in rejecting the Department’s interpretation of the cost-sharing law. In its answer brief, the Department acknowledg…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Egan, 287 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973)
- Fla. Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Contractpoint Fla. Parks, LLC, 986 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2008)
- Fla. Hosp. (Adventist Health v. State of Fla. Agency FOR Health Care Admin., 823 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Smith v. Crawford, 645 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)