FLORIDA QUARTER HORSE TRACK ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARIMUTUEL WAGERING, FLORIDA QUARTER HORSE RACING ASSOCIATION, INC., FLORIDA QUARTER HORSE BREEDERS AND OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AND GERALD KEESLING, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 2014-02-07

No. 1D13-2660

CLARK, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.

133 So. 3d 1118 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2014) Positive Treatment

Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Quarter Horse Track Association challenged the Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering's policy treating "Gretna-style" barrel match racing as an authorized form of quarter horse racing without formal rulemaking. The court affirmed that the Division's policy constitutes an unadopted rule that violates Florida's Administrative Procedure Act.

Holding

The Division's policy of licensing pari-mutuel wagering on barrel match racing by treating it as legally equivalent to quarter horse racing constitutes an unadopted rule in violation of section 120.54(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes. Agencies cannot establish policies that operate as law "stealthily by the issuance of expedient licenses" without formal rulemaking; such policies must be formally adopted through the transparent rulemaking procedure.

Headnotes

[1] An agency policy that treats a previously unrecognized activity as an authorized form of a regulated activity for purposes of issuing permits and licenses constitutes a s…

[2] An agency policy that operates as law must be formally adopted in public through the rulemaking procedure set forth in statute.

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“A policy which allows pari-mutuel wagering to be conducted on a previously unrecognized activity by deeming that activity to be "quarter horse racing" is without question a statement of general applicability having the force and effect of law.”
Establishes that the Division's barrel match racing policy constitutes a statement of general applicability with the force of law

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering adopted a policy treating barrel match racing as an authorized form of quarter horse racing and issued permits an…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Force And Effect Of Law Unadopted Rule Administrative Law Mootness

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Force And Effect Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final order determining that the Division of Pari-mu-tuel Wagering’s policy of treating “ ‘Gret-na-style’ barrel match racing” as an authorized form of quarter horse racing for purposes of issuing permits and licenses under chapter 550, Florida Statutes, is a “rule” that has not been adopted pursuant to the rulemaking process in violation of section 120.54(l)(a), Florida Statutes. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.1

The issue in this case is not whether barrel match racing can be or should be considered “horseracing” for purposes of the state’s pari-mutuel wagering laws. Instead, the narrow issue in this case is whether the Division’s policy of treating barrel match racing as an authorized form of quarter horse racing is an unadopted rule.2 On this issue, the Administrative Law Judge succinctly explained:

A policy which allows pari-mutuel wagering to be conducted on a previously unrecognized activity by deeming that activity to be “quarter horse racing” is without question a statement of general applicability having the force and effect of law. Florida administrative law does not allow an agency to establish such a policy stealthily by the issuance of expedient licenses; this is equally true whether the policy is highly controversial or widely praised. To be legal and enforceable, a policy which operates as *1120law must be formally adopted in public, through the transparent process of the rulemaking procedure set forth in section 120.54. In sum, the Division’s policy of licensing the conduct of pari-mutu-el wagering on [barrel match racing], on the ground that [barrel match racing] is legally equivalent to quarter horse racing, constitutes an unadopted rule. As such, it violates section 120.54(l)(a).

We agree with this analysis, and because the findings upon which the analysis is based are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm the final order.

AFFIRMED.

CLARK, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.

. An unadopted rule is "an agency statement that meets the definition of the term ‘rule,’ but that has not been adopted pursuant to the requirements of s. 120.54.” § 120.52(20), Fla. Stat.; see also § 120.54(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (requiring agency statements that meet the definition of a rule to be adopted through the rulemaking process as soon as feasible and practicable). A "rule” is "each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy.” § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat.; see also Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Schluter, 705 So.2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (holding that policies governing employee misconduct that applied without exception were unadopt-ed rules); McCarthy v. Dep’t of Ins. and Treasurer, 479 So.2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (holding that a letter from the fire marshal setting out requirements for obtaining fire inspector certification constituted an una-dopted rule); Dep’t of Admin. v. Harvey, 356 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (holding that minimum training and experience requirements for state employment were unadopted rules); Dep’t of Admin. v. Stevens, 344 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (holding that the procedures for "bumping” or laying off an employee upon termination by the legislature of another employee’s position, were unadopt-ed rules); but see St. Francis Hosp., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 553 So.2d 1351, 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (explaining that "an agency interpretation of a statute which simply reiterates the legislature’s statutory mandate and does not place upon the statute an interpretation that is not readily apparent from its literal reading, nor in and of itself purport to create certain rights ... or have the direct and consistent effect of the law, is not an [unadopted] rule”); Envtl. Trust v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 714 So.2d 493, 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ("An agency statement explaining how an existing rule of general applicability will be applied in a particular set of facts is not itself a rule.”).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Hamilton Downs Horsetrack, LLC v. State, 226 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)

Authorities Cited

State v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
ST. Francis Hosp., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 553 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Schluter, 705 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
Cradduck v. State, 356 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
State v. Harvey, 356 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
The Env't Tr. & Sarasota Env't Invs., Inc. v. State, 714 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
McCARTHY v. Dep't of Ins. & Treas., 479 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw