Metropolitan Dade County v. Nichols

Supreme Court of Florida

Metropolitan Dade County v. Nichols

517 So. 2d 691, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 26, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 36, 1988 WL 1517

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 1988

DocketNo. 70703

StatusPublished

This text of 517 So. 2d 691 (Metropolitan Dade County v. Nichols) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metropolitan Dade County v. Nichols, 517 So. 2d 691, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 26, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 36, 1988 WL 1517 (Fla. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We review Public Service Commission (PSC) Order No. 17273, issued March 11, 1987. Art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const.; § 350.128, Fla.Stat. (1985).

In the order under appeal, PSC approved a request from Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) to establish a new and reduced rate which FPL would pay to qualified facilities for electric power cogenerat-ed on an as available basis. Appellants argue that the expert witness on whose testimony the PSC relied was not expert in all areas of his testimony and that this hearsay testimony was not supported by other evidence. We disagree. The record reflects that the witness was personally involved in the FPL study and possessed the necessary expertise to enable him to testify as to the methodology used in evaluating the study. Moreover, we disagree with appellants assertion that the witness’s testimony was not supported by other competent evidence. We affirm the order.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We review Public Service Commission (PSC) Order No. 17273, issued March 11, 1987. Art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const.; § 350.128, Fla.Stat. (1985).

In the order under appeal, PSC approved a request from Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) to establish a new and reduced rate which FPL would pay to qualified facilities for electric power cogenerat-ed on an as available basis. Appellants argue that the expert witness on whose testimony the PSC relied was not expert in all areas of his testimony and that this hearsay testimony was not supported by other evidence. We disagree. The record reflects that the witness was personally involved in the FPL study and possessed the necessary expertise to enable him to testify as to the methodology used in evaluating the study. Moreover, we disagree with appellants assertion that the witness’s testimony was not supported by other competent evidence. We affirm the order.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 So. 2d 691, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 26, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 36, 1988 WL 1517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-dade-county-v-nichols-fla-1988.