Young v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION

825 So. 2d 1044, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13222, 2002 WL 31039659
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 13, 2002
Docket1D02-3200
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 825 So. 2d 1044 (Young v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION) 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
Young v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, 825 So. 2d 1044, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13222, 2002 WL 31039659 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

825 So.2d 1044 (2002)

Linda YOUNG, et al., Petitioners,
v.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, et al., Respondents.

No. 1D02-3200.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 13, 2002.

Jerrel E. Phillips and Timothy Keyser of Keyser & Woodward, Interlachen, for petitioners.

Betsy Hewitt, Deputy General Counsel and Francine Ffolkes, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee; Terry Cole and Jeffrey Brown of Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioners oppose a permit which respondent seeks to obtain from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings. After a recommended order issued, petitioners moved for the disqualification of DEP's Secretary David B. Struhs. When Secretary Struhs delayed acting on the motion, a petition for writ of mandamus was filed with this court and assigned case number 1D02-3140. Although this court directed the filing of a response to the petition for writ of mandamus, a final order was issued by DEP which both denied the motion for disqualification and granted the permit, subject to certain conditions. The petition for writ of mandamus has been denied as moot.

*1045 Petitioners seek review of the final order (and denial of the motion for disqualification) through the instant petition for extraordinary writ. Because petitioners have an adequate legal remedy by appeal of the final order, we deny the petition. We have considered treating the petition as a notice of appeal in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c), but decline to do so in light of petitioners' representation that they have moved for reconsideration of the final order.

PETITION DENIED.

WOLF, WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

Related

W.L.S. v. Florida Department of Children & Families
8 So. 3d 503 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Armistead v. Brown
833 So. 2d 302 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
825 So. 2d 1044, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13222, 2002 WL 31039659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-georgia-pacific-corporation-fladistctapp-2002.