DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING
v.
THE FLORIDA HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NONPROFIT CORPORATION
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 addressed whether the Florida Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering exceeded its delegated legislative authority by adopting its own penalty schedule instead of incorporating the penalty schedule from the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances referenced in section 550.2415(7). The court held that the statute clearly required incorporation of both the classification system and the corresponding penalty schedule from the referenced document, not just the classification system.
The court held that section 550.2415(7) is clear and unambiguous in requiring the Division to incorporate not only the classification system but also the corresponding penalty schedule from the referenced document. By adopting its own penalty schedule instead, the Division exceeded its delegated legislative authority.
[1] When a statute requires an agency to adopt rules incorporating a specific document by reference, and that document contains multiple components explicitly referenced in t…
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 intelligence“The division rules must include a classification system for drugs and substances and a corresponding penalty schedule for violations which incorporates the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, Version 8.0, revised December 2014, by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc.”
Statutory language from section 550.2415(7)(c), Florida Statutes, establishing the mandatory requirements for the Division's rule
The Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering adopted rules for drug and substance classification under section 550.2415(7), Florida Statutes. The Division cre…
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 Collateral Legal Consequences cases and more on FLexlaw
section 550.2415(7), Florida Statutes (2015), is clear and unambiguous. See Fla. Hosp. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 823 So. 2d 844, 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding that 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”). The provision provides that “[t]he division rules must include a classification system for drugs and substances and a corresponding penalty schedule for violations which incorporates the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, Version 8.0, revised December 2014, by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc.” § 550.2415(7)(c), Fla. Stat. The parties agree that the referenced document includes a penalty schedule, and we reject the Division’s argument that the statutory provision directs the Division to incorporate only the drug-classification portion of that document, rather than—as the statute says—a classification system “and a corresponding penalty schedule for violations which incorporates” that document. Because the Division adopted its own penalty schedule, it exceeded its delegated legislative authority.∗
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ ∗ We agree with the parties that although the rule has been revised and now includes the required penalty schedule, the issue is not moot because disciplinary actions are pending below based on violation of the invalid rule. See, e.g., Dep’t of Health v. Shands Jacksonville Medical Ctr. Inc., 259 So. 3d 247, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (noting a matter is not considered moot where “collateral legal consequences flow from the issues to be resolved that may affect the rights of a party”).
Ross Marshman, Chief Appellate Counsel for the Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Bradford J. Beilly and John Strohsahl of Beilly & Strohsahl, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Hosp. (Adventist Health v. State of Fla. Agency FOR Health Care Admin., 823 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd. v. Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr. (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)