Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco

496 So. 2d 193, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2146, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10116

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1986

DocketNo. BK-272

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 496 So. 2d 193 (Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco) 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

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 496 So. 2d 193, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2146, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10116 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

Appellants challenged proposed Fla.Admin.Code Rule 7A-10.26 arguing that it constituted an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and exceeded the purposes of its enabling legislation. The hearing officer below concluded that the proposed rule merely provided a more explicit definition than the statutory language and that it did not exceed its statutory authority. We agree and affirm.

Proposed Rule 7A-10.26 clarifies the former rule’s definition of Seminole Indians, adds additional record keeping and documentation requirements and specifies that [194]*194the sales in question may take place only on reservation or trust lands. The primary enabling statute for the rule is § 210.05(5), Fla.Stat. The provisions of the proposed rule are reasonable interpretations of the statutory language and are consistent with the legislative purpose. AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ„ concur.

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

THOMPSON, Judge.

Appellants challenged proposed Fla.Admin.Code Rule 7A-10.26 arguing that it constituted an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and exceeded the purposes of its enabling legislation. The hearing officer below concluded that the proposed rule merely provided a more explicit definition than the statutory language and that it did not exceed its statutory authority. We agree and affirm.

Proposed Rule 7A-10.26 clarifies the former rule’s definition of Seminole Indians, adds additional record keeping and documentation requirements and specifies that [194]*194the sales in question may take place only on reservation or trust lands. The primary enabling statute for the rule is § 210.05(5), Fla.Stat. The provisions of the proposed rule are reasonable interpretations of the statutory language and are consistent with the legislative purpose. AFFIRMED.

JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 So. 2d 193, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2146, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seminole-tribe-of-florida-v-state-department-of-business-regulation-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack