SC.Read, Inc. v. Seminole County School Board

District Court of Appeal of Florida

SC.Read, Inc. v. Seminole County School Board

951 So. 2d 3, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 857, 2007 WL 186799

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 2007

DocketNo. 5D05-1203

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 951 So. 2d 3 (SC.Read, Inc. v. Seminole County School Board) 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

SC.Read, Inc. v. Seminole County School Board, 951 So. 2d 3, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 857, 2007 WL 186799 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arose out of a proposed agency action in the form of school attendance zone redistricting in Seminole County. Appellants, S.C. Read, Inc. and Jennifer Finch, as parent, legal guardian and next friend of Christopher Brady (collectively “Appellants”), appeal the administrative law judge’s final order dismissing their second amended petition/request for determination of invalidity of proposed rule. We find no reversible error and affirm. In particular, we cannot agree with Appellants’ contention that the Seminole County School Board’s policy J mandated the Board’s adoption, without change, of one of the plan alternatives selected by the core committee.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arose out of a proposed agency action in the form of school attendance zone redistricting in Seminole County. Appellants, S.C. Read, Inc. and Jennifer Finch, as parent, legal guardian and next friend of Christopher Brady (collectively “Appellants”), appeal the administrative law judge’s final order dismissing their second amended petition/request for determination of invalidity of proposed rule. We find no reversible error and affirm. In particular, we cannot agree with Appellants’ contention that the Seminole County School Board’s policy J mandated the Board’s adoption, without change, of one of the plan alternatives selected by the core committee.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

951 So. 2d 3, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 857, 2007 WL 186799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scread-inc-v-seminole-county-school-board-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack