OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, HONORABLE JOHN KEANE, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN W. HUNTER, AND THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, RESPONDENTS
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 Public Defender's Office of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit sought review of an Industrial Relations Commission decision in an unemployment compensation matter. The court determined that the case was not properly within the jurisdiction of the First District Court of Appeal due to application of the predecessor statutory review provision rather than the new 1974 Administrative Procedure Act.
Because the administrative proceeding began before the 1974 Administrative Procedure Act's effective date of January 1, 1975, the repealing clause and other provisions of the new Act are ineffective in this matter, and review is properly governed by the predecessor statute § 443.07(4)(e). The petition is cognizable in the Third District Court of Appeal, not the First District.
[1] Judicial review of agency action under the 1974 Administrative Procedure Act is available in the district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party res…
[2] The 1974 Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to administrative adjudicative proceedings that began prior to its effective date.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This administrative adjudicative proceeding began prior to January 1, 1975, the effective date of the 1974 Administrative Procedure Act. Ch. 74-310, § 6, Fla.Laws. Therefore, the repealing clause and other provisions of the new Act would be ineffective in this matter.”
Establishes that the saving clause applies because the proceeding commenced before the new Act's effective date, meaning the old statutory review provision governs.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn administrative adjudicative proceeding before the Industrial Relations Commission regarding an unemployment compensation matter began prior to Janu…
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 Effective Date Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
This petition for review by certiorari (Rule 4.5c, F.A.R.) is addressed to a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission in an unemployment compensation matter. Sec. 443.07, F.S.1973. The 1974 Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 120, F.S.1973 (1974 Sup.), is said by petitioner to provide our jurisdiction. That Act provides for district court of appeal review of agency action in the district “where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides.” Sec. 120.68(2), F.S.1973 (1974 Sup.). The Industrial Relations Commission has its office at the seat of this Court in Tallahassee.
Because the 1974 Administrative Procedure Act replaced the provisions for judicial review in administrative matters m Florida Statutes 1973 [ch. 74 — 310, § 3(1), Fla.Laws], petitioner asserts that § 443.07 (4)(e), F.S.1973, providing for review of Industrial Commission orders in the district “in which the issues involved were decided by an appeals referee,” was thus supplanted. We need not decide that question. This administrative adjudicative proceeding began prior to January 1, 1975, the effective date of the 1974 Administrative Procedure Act. Ch. 74-310, § 6, Fla.Laws. Therefore, the repealing clause and other provisions of the new Act would be ineffective in this matter. Sec. 120.72(2), F. S.1973 (1974 Sup.). See Lewis v. Judges of the District Court of Appeal, First District, 322 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1974). This petition is cognizable in the Distict Court of Appeal, Third District. Sec. 443.07(4) (e), F.S.1973; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Marshall, 106 So. 2d 212 (Fla.App. 1st, 1958). It will be transferred to that Court.
It is ordered.
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McRAY v. B. A. Schiff & Assocs., 106 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Lewis v. Judges OF the Dist. Court OF Appeal, 322 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1975)