Charlot v. County of Miami-Dade Aviation Department

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Charlot v. County of Miami-Dade Aviation Department

119 So. 3d 567, 2013 WL 4529655, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13684

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 28, 2013·No. No. 3D12-2158·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Valenzuela v. Globe-Ground, N. Am., LLC, 18 So.3d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Fla. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So.2d 1205, 1209-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[T]he ultimate question of the existence of discrimination is a question of fact.... [A]n appellate court’s power to alter the lower tribunal’s finding in that regard is limited to those findings that are clearly erroneous.... Because discriminatory intent is an issue of fact ... it must be accepted by the reviewing agency unless that finding is not supported by [competent substantial evidence] in the record.”) (citations omitted).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Valenzuela v. Globe-Ground, N. Am., LLC, 18 So.3d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Fla. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So.2d 1205, 1209-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[T]he ultimate question of the existence of discrimination is a question of fact.... [A]n appellate court’s power to alter the lower tribunal’s finding in that regard is limited to those findings that are clearly erroneous.... Because discriminatory intent is an issue of fact ... it must be accepted by the reviewing agency unless that finding is not supported by [competent substantial evidence] in the record.”) (citations omitted).

Charlot v. County of Miami-Dade Aviation Department, 119 So. 3d 567, 2013 WL 4529655, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13684 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

119 So. 3d 567 (Charlot v. County of Miami-Dade Aviation Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related