Hardwick v. Florida Citrus Commission

207 So. 2d 746
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 6, 1968
DocketNos. 67-72, 67-73
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 So. 2d 746 (Hardwick v. Florida Citrus Commission) 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
Hardwick v. Florida Citrus Commission, 207 So. 2d 746 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek review by certiorari of an order of the Florida Citrus Commission. The Commission has filed a motion to dismiss questioning our jurisdiction in the matter.

The Commission adopted certain amendments to its regulations prohibiting any future use of the “Indian River” label on citrus fruit grown on lands west of Range 40 East in Martin County. Petitioners filed protests pursuant to Section 601.12 of Florida Statutes (1965), F.S.A. The Commission appointed a hearing officer, and a hearing was held at which petitioners presented evidence in support of their protests. The hearing officer recommended that the aforesaid amendments be declared in full force and effect, and the Commission so ordered.

Upon consideration of the applicable provisions of the Florida Administrative Procedure Act and of other pertinent authorities, we conclude that the proper method of judicial review of the order in question is by suit for declaratory judgment in the appropriate Circuit Court. Fla.Stat., Secs. 120.30(1), 120.31(1), 120.21(3) (7) (1965), F.S.A.; cf. Modlin v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.1967, 201 So.2d 70; Teston v. City of Tampa, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 473; DeGroot v. Sheffield, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 912; West Flagler Amusement Co. v. State Racing Comm., 1935, 122 Fla. 222, 165 So. 64; Harris v. Goff, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 642; Bloomfield v. Mayo, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 417. Accordingly, we deny the petitions without prejudice to petitioners’ right to pursue the remedies provided in Section 120.30.

Certiorari denied.

LILES, C. J., and ALLEN and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hardwick v. Florida Citrus Commission
214 So. 2d 622 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1968)
Minute Maid Groves Corp. v. Florida Citrus Commission
214 So. 2d 623 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 So. 2d 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardwick-v-florida-citrus-commission-fladistctapp-1968.