Boling v. Wardco Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boling v. Wardco Insurance Co.

378 So. 2d 1279, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16298

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 28, 1979·No. No. QQ-123·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Pending final resolution of the constitutional issues which may inhere in oúr exercise of jurisdiction in this appeal of a worker’s compensation order entered in Orange County (see Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority v. Cormio, et al., Cases QQ-421 and RR-83, DCA 1, order entered December 13,1979), we conclude in favor of determination of the merits of the appeal and affirmance of the order appealed. This exercise of jurisdiction, however, is based solely on the absence of any challenge by the parties in this case, together with presumptions consequent on certification of the relevant jurisdictional issues to the Supreme Court by a panel of this court deciding in favor of validity of the controlling statute in the cases above cited. However, our choices against disposition of this cause based on sua sponte treatment of constitutional issues rests on consideration of order[1280] ly interim procedure and the potential for de facto authority in the mass of affected appeals, and not on concurrence with the conclusions reached in the certified cases relative to those issues. Instead, there appears to us at this time to be no basis for finding such administrative orders to constitute state agency action occurring within this district,¹ and no defensible construction of Art. V, Sec. 4(b)(2), Fla.Const., other than to permit general laws prescribing for any district court the “power of direct review of administrative action” within that district.² Notwithstanding that view, for reasons aforesaid, we affirm.

SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Pending final resolution of the constitutional issues which may inhere in oúr exercise of jurisdiction in this appeal of a worker’s compensation order entered in Orange County (see Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority v. Cormio, et al., Cases QQ-421 and RR-83, DCA 1, order entered December 13,1979), we conclude in favor of determination of the merits of the appeal and affirmance of the order appealed. This exercise of jurisdiction, however, is based solely on the absence of any challenge by the parties in this case, together with presumptions consequent on certification of the relevant jurisdictional issues to the Supreme Court by a panel of this court deciding in favor of validity of the controlling statute in the cases above cited. However, our choices against disposition of this cause based on sua sponte treatment of constitutional issues rests on consideration of order[1280] ly interim procedure and the potential for de facto authority in the mass of affected appeals, and not on concurrence with the conclusions reached in the certified cases relative to those issues. Instead, there appears to us at this time to be no basis for finding such administrative orders to constitute state agency action occurring within this district,¹ and no defensible construction of Art. V, Sec. 4(b)(2), Fla.Const., other than to permit general laws prescribing for any district court the “power of direct review of administrative action” within that district.² Notwithstanding that view, for reasons aforesaid, we affirm.

SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents.

Footnotes

Boling v. Wardco Insurance Co., 378 So. 2d 1279, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16298 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

378 So. 2d 1279 (Boling v. Wardco Insurance Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Footnotes

Related