Florida Quarter Horse Racing Ass'n v. State, Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Parimutuel Wagering

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Quarter Horse Racing Ass'n v. State, Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Parimutuel Wagering

80 So. 3d 458, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3028, 2012 WL 638459

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2012

DocketNo. 1D11-6425

StatusPublished

This text of 80 So. 3d 458 (Florida Quarter Horse Racing Ass'n v. State, Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Parimutuel Wagering) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Florida Quarter Horse Racing Ass'n v. State, Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Parimutuel Wagering, 80 So. 3d 458, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3028, 2012 WL 638459 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. McGuire v. Florida Lottery, 17 So.3d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that the provision in the order providing that it would become final if the complaint is not amended did not cure the jurisdictional defect and a separate final order must be entered); Hinote v. Ford [459]*459Motor Co., 958 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Envtl. Confederation of SW Fla., Inc. v. IMC Phosphates, Inc., 857 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (noting that the dismissal of appellants’ petition for administrative hearing was entered without prejudice and with leave to amend but “they declined to amend their petition and instead asked the Department to enter a final order of dismissal”).

WETHERELL, MARSTILLER, and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. McGuire v. Florida Lottery, 17 So.3d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that the provision in the order providing that it would become final if the complaint is not amended did not cure the jurisdictional defect and a separate final order must be entered); Hinote v. Ford [459]*459Motor Co., 958 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); see also Envtl. Confederation of SW Fla., Inc. v. IMC Phosphates, Inc., 857 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (noting that the dismissal of appellants’ petition for administrative hearing was entered without prejudice and with leave to amend but “they declined to amend their petition and instead asked the Department to enter a final order of dismissal”).

WETHERELL, MARSTILLER, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 So. 3d 458, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3028, 2012 WL 638459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-quarter-horse-racing-assn-v-state-department-of-business-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack