Palmer v. Department of Transportation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Palmer v. Department of Transportation

705 So. 2d 710, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1206, 1998 WL 55687

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1701

StatusPublished

This text of 705 So. 2d 710 (Palmer v. Department of Transportation) 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

Palmer v. Department of Transportation, 705 So. 2d 710, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1206, 1998 WL 55687 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Clifford Palmer [“Palmer”] appeals an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission [“PERC”] which affirmed his involuntary transfer from the Department of Transportation’s DeLand office to its Orlando office. The DOT has cross-appealed, alleging that PERC was without jurisdiction to consider the transfer.

Palmer has raised multiple points on appeal, all of which turn on the question whether substantial competent evidence supports the hearing officer’s decision that Palmer’s transfer was for a legitimate business purpose. After reviewing the record, we find ample evidence to support the hearing officer’s decision. We also find no other legal or constitutional impediment to the transfer and affirm PERC’s final order in all respects. As for the question of jurisdiction, it is a close one, literally and evidentially. We conclude there is no basis to reverse the commission’s decision that there was a failure of sufficient proof of a lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Clifford Palmer [“Palmer”] appeals an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission [“PERC”] which affirmed his involuntary transfer from the Department of Transportation’s DeLand office to its Orlando office. The DOT has cross-appealed, alleging that PERC was without jurisdiction to consider the transfer.

Palmer has raised multiple points on appeal, all of which turn on the question whether substantial competent evidence supports the hearing officer’s decision that Palmer’s transfer was for a legitimate business purpose. After reviewing the record, we find ample evidence to support the hearing officer’s decision. We also find no other legal or constitutional impediment to the transfer and affirm PERC’s final order in all respects. As for the question of jurisdiction, it is a close one, literally and evidentially. We conclude there is no basis to reverse the commission’s decision that there was a failure of sufficient proof of a lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 710, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1206, 1998 WL 55687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-department-of-transportation-fladistctapp-1998.