Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 120.56 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 120.56 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 120.56

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title X
PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS
Chapter 120
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 120.56
120.56 Challenges to rules.
(1) GENERAL PROCEDURES.
(a) Any person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
(b) The petition challenging the validity of a proposed or adopted rule under this section must state:
1. The particular provisions alleged to be invalid and a statement of the facts or grounds for the alleged invalidity.
2. Facts sufficient to show that the petitioner is substantially affected by the challenged adopted rule or would be substantially affected by the proposed rule.
(c) The petition shall be filed by electronic means with the division which shall, immediately upon filing, forward by electronic means copies to the agency whose rule is challenged, the Department of State, and the committee. Within 10 days after receiving the petition, the division director shall, if the petition complies with paragraph (b), assign an administrative law judge who shall conduct a hearing within 30 days thereafter, unless the petition is withdrawn or a continuance is granted by agreement of the parties or for good cause shown. Evidence of good cause includes, but is not limited to, written notice of an agency’s decision to modify or withdraw the proposed rule or a written notice from the chair of the committee stating that the committee will consider an objection to the rule at its next scheduled meeting. The failure of an agency to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in this chapter shall be presumed to be material; however, the agency may rebut this presumption by showing that the substantial interests of the petitioner and the fairness of the proceedings have not been impaired.
(d) Within 30 days after the hearing, the administrative law judge shall render a decision and state the reasons for his or her decision in writing. The division shall forthwith transmit by electronic means copies of the administrative law judge’s decision to the agency, the Department of State, and the committee.
(e) Hearings held under this section shall be de novo in nature. The standard of proof shall be the preponderance of the evidence. Hearings shall be conducted in the same manner as provided by ss. 120.569 and 120.57, except that the administrative law judge’s order shall be final agency action. The petitioner and the agency whose rule is challenged shall be adverse parties. Other substantially affected persons may join the proceedings as intervenors on appropriate terms which shall not unduly delay the proceedings. Failure to proceed under this section does not constitute failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
(2) CHALLENGING PROPOSED RULES; SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
(a) A petition alleging the invalidity of a proposed rule shall be filed within 21 days after the date of publication of the notice required by s. 120.54(3)(a); within 10 days after the final public hearing is held on the proposed rule as provided by s. 120.54(3)(e)2.; within 20 days after the statement of estimated regulatory costs or revised statement of estimated regulatory costs, if applicable, has been prepared and made available as provided in s. 120.541(1)(d); or within 20 days after the date of publication of the notice required by s. 120.54(3)(d). The petitioner has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner would be substantially affected by the proposed rule. The agency then has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised. A person who is not substantially affected by the proposed rule as initially noticed, but who is substantially affected by the rule as a result of a change, may challenge any provision of the resulting proposed rule.
(b) The administrative law judge may declare the proposed rule wholly or partly invalid. Unless the decision of the administrative law judge is reversed on appeal, the proposed rule or provision of a proposed rule declared invalid shall not be adopted. After a petition for administrative determination has been filed, the agency may proceed with all other steps in the rulemaking process, including the holding of a factfinding hearing. In the event part of a proposed rule is declared invalid, the adopting agency may, in its sole discretion, withdraw the proposed rule in its entirety. The agency whose proposed rule has been declared invalid in whole or part shall give notice of the decision in the first available issue of the Florida Administrative Register.
(c) When any substantially affected person seeks determination of the invalidity of a proposed rule pursuant to this section, the proposed rule is not presumed to be valid or invalid.
(3) CHALLENGING RULES IN EFFECT; SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
(a) A petition alleging the invalidity of an existing rule may be filed at any time during which the rule is in effect. The petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised.
(b) The administrative law judge may declare all or part of a rule invalid. The rule or part thereof declared invalid shall become void when the time for filing an appeal expires. The agency whose rule has been declared invalid in whole or part shall give notice of the decision in the Florida Administrative Register in the first available issue after the rule has become void.
(4) CHALLENGING AGENCY STATEMENTS DEFINED AS UNADOPTED RULES; SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
(a) Any person substantially affected by an agency statement that is an unadopted rule may seek an administrative determination that the statement violates s. 120.54(1)(a). The petition shall include the text of the statement or a description of the statement and shall state facts sufficient to show that the statement constitutes an unadopted rule.
(b) The administrative law judge may extend the hearing date beyond 30 days after assignment of the case for good cause. Upon notification to the administrative law judge provided before the final hearing that the agency has published a notice of rulemaking under s. 120.54(3), such notice shall automatically operate as a stay of proceedings pending adoption of the statement as a rule. The administrative law judge may vacate the stay for good cause shown. A stay of proceedings pending rulemaking shall remain in effect so long as the agency is proceeding expeditiously and in good faith to adopt the statement as a rule.
(c) If a hearing is held and the petitioner proves the allegations of the petition, the agency shall have the burden of proving that rulemaking is not feasible or not practicable under s. 120.54(1)(a).
(d) The administrative law judge may determine whether all or part of a statement violates s. 120.54(1)(a). The decision of the administrative law judge shall constitute a final order. The division shall transmit a copy of the final order to the Department of State and the committee. The Department of State shall publish notice of the final order in the first available issue of the Florida Administrative Register.
(e) If an administrative law judge enters a final order that all or part of an unadopted rule violates s. 120.54(1)(a), the agency must immediately discontinue all reliance upon the unadopted rule or any substantially similar statement as a basis for agency action.
(f) If proposed rules addressing the challenged unadopted rule are determined to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in s. 120.52(8)(b)-(f), the agency must immediately discontinue reliance upon the unadopted rule and any substantially similar statement until rules addressing the subject are properly adopted, and the administrative law judge shall enter a final order to that effect.
(g) All proceedings to determine a violation of s. 120.54(1)(a) shall be brought pursuant to this subsection. A proceeding pursuant to this subsection may be consolidated with a proceeding under subsection (3) or under any other section of this chapter. This paragraph does not prevent a party whose substantial interests have been determined by an agency action from bringing a proceeding pursuant to s. 120.57(1)(e).
(5) CHALLENGING EMERGENCY RULES; SPECIAL PROVISIONS.Challenges to the validity of an emergency rule shall be subject to the following time schedules in lieu of those established by paragraphs (1)(c) and (d). Within 7 days after receiving the petition, the division director shall, if the petition complies with paragraph (1)(b), assign an administrative law judge, who shall conduct a hearing within 14 days, unless the petition is withdrawn. The administrative law judge shall render a decision within 14 days after the hearing.
History.s. 1, ch. 74-310; s. 5, ch. 75-191; s. 6, ch. 76-131; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 4, ch. 78-425; s. 759, ch. 95-147; s. 16, ch. 96-159; s. 6, ch. 97-176; s. 5, ch. 99-379; s. 3, ch. 2003-94; s. 5, ch. 2006-82; ss. 10, 11, ch. 2008-104; ss. 3, 5, ch. 2010-279; HJR 9-A, 2010 Special Session A; s. 10, ch. 2011-208; s. 3, ch. 2011-225; s. 8, ch. 2013-14; s. 3, ch. 2016-116.

F.S. 120.56 on Google Scholar

F.S. 120.56 on Casetext

Amendments to 120.56


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 120.56
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 120.56.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF FLORIDA d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a v. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a v. v. d b a HCA d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a JFK d b a JFK JFK d b a JFK d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a MHT, LLC, d b a d b a a d b a d b a d b a HCA d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a PPH, LLC, d b a d b a d b a d b a LLC, d b a d b a HCA d b a HCA d b a d b a d b a HCA d b a St. d b a St. TCH, LLC, d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a v. v. d b a HCA d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a JFK d b a JFK JFK d b a JFK d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a MHT, LLC, d b a d b a a d b a d b a d b a HCA d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a PPH, LLC, d b a d b a d b a d b a LLC, d b a d b a HCA d b a HCA d b a d b a d b a HCA d b a St. d b a St. TCH, LLC, d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a HCA d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a JFK d b a JFK JFK d b a JFK d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a MHT, LLC, d b a d b a a d b a d b a d b a HCA d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a PPH, LLC, d b a d b a d b a d b a LLC, d b a d b a HCA d b a HCA d b a d b a d b a HCA d b a St. d b a St. TCH, LLC, d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a v. d b a d b a d b a St. s d b a St. s St. s- St. s d b a St. s St. s d b a St. s v. CGH d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a a d b a d b a St. s d b a St. s d b a v. d b a d b a d b a St. s d b a St. s St. s- St. s d b a St. s St. s d b a St. s v. CGH d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a a d b a d b a St. s d b a St. s d b a v. d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a v. HMA LLC, d b a St. HMA, LLC, d b a d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA LLC HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC HMA LLC, d b a SC, LLC, d b a St. LLC, d b a HMA, LLC d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC LLC, d b a LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a v. v. HMA LLC, d b a St. HMA, LLC, d b a d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA LLC HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC HMA LLC, d b a SC, LLC, d b a St. LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC LLC, d b a LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a HMA, LLC, d b a v. d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a d b a v. v., 270 So. 3d 488 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . . § 120.56(3)(a), Fla. Stat. . . . . § 120.56(2)(a), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Bd. of Med. v. Fla. . . . contravenes the specific provisions of ... the language of the enabling statute." §§ 120.52(8)(c), (9), 120.56 . . . See § 120.56(2)(c), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 120.56(1), Fla. Stat. To date, the unit cost cap has not been exceeded. . . .

GRABBA- LEAF, LLC, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,, 257 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 120.56(4), Fla. Stat. . . . describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency" is considered a "rule." §§ 120.52(16), 120.56 . . . correctly dismissed Appellant's Petition to Determine Invalidity of Agency Statement filed under section 120.56 . . .

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE- REGULAR- CYCLE REPORT., 256 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2018)

. . . In an appeal from any proceeding conducted pursuant to section 120.56 (rule challenges) or sections 120.569 . . . (i) In an appeal from any proceeding conducted pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes, the record . . .

ORLANDO HEALTH CENTRAL, INC. v. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, d b a LLC,, 252 So. 3d 849 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . amended by the agency," this statute does not grant those rules immunity to challenges under section 120.56 . . . As rules "in effect" are still subject to challenge pursuant to section 120.56(3), it follows that "enforceable . . . that a legislative mandate that certain rules are "in effect" does not render them immune from section 120.56 . . . the invalidity of an existing rule may be filed at any time during which the rule is in effect." § 120.56 . . .

P. F- G, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION,, 252 So. 3d 304 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . challenging the use of an unadopted rule in vocational rehabilitation proceedings, filed pursuant to section 120.56 . . . According to section 120.56, Florida Statutes (2017) ; Any person substantially affected by an agency . . .

GOODMAN, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,, 238 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 2018)

. . . In his DOAH petition, Goodman challenged the validity of an existing Rule under section 120.56(3), Florida . . . of the evidence that the existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." § 120.56 . . .

K. M. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,, 237 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. App. Ct. 2017)

. . . K.M. does not have standing under section 120.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), to assert her challenge . . . of Proposed Rule (the "Petition") with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to section 120.56 . . . the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." § 120.56 . . .

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE NO. v. CITY OF MIAMI,, 233 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . standing doctrine applies primarily in the context of an association’s rule challenges under section 120.56 . . . Home Builders, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that “the only issue to be resolved in a section 120.56 . . . (1) proceeding is whether an agency rule is valid,” and noted that a section 120.56(1) proceeding “does . . .

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI- MUTUEL WAGERING, v. DANIA ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, LLC LLC TBDG, LLC d b a TGT, 229 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . The Proposed Repeal Was a Rule Section 120.56(1) permits “[a]ny person substantially affected by a rule . . . the rule on the ground that the' rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.” § 120.56 . . .

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 230 So. 3d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . argued that the rule challenge petitions were timely because they were filed, as required by section 120.56 . . . challenge petitions were timely filed pursuant to a separate "point of entry” set forth in section 120.56 . . .

PINNACLE HOUSING GROUP, LLC, v. FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION,, 239 So. 3d 722 (Fla. App. Ct. 2017)

. . . We decline to review this claim as section 120.56, Florida Statutes, provides a fully adequate, and therefore . . .

FLORIDA PULP AND PAPER ASSOCIATION ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 223 So. 3d 417 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . The petition alleged that it was timely under section 120.56(2)(a) because it was filed “within 20 days . . . By doing so, the Department triggered the third point of entry in section 120.56(2)(a). . . . See § 120.56(l)(a) (“Any person substantially affected by ... a proposed rule may seek an administrative . . . Cfi § 120.56(2)(a), Fla. Stat. . . . This argument ignores the fact that the points of entry listed in section 120.56(2)(a) are separated . . .

AMADOR, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF MONROE COUNTY,, 225 So. 3d 853 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . respondent has the right to request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.56 . . .

SCHOOL BOARD OF HERNANDO COUNTY, v. RHEA,, 213 So. 3d 1032 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 120.56(4), Fla. Stat. . . .

GOODMAN, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,, 203 So. 3d 909 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . See § 120.56(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010); State Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. . . .

SAUNDERS, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 185 So. 3d 1298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Saunders was required to challenge the Department’s decision in a proceeding pursuant, section 120.56 . . . Section 120.56 does not provide the.exclusive means for a party to raise an argument that an agency is . . . on the statement as a basis for agency action. § 120.56(4)(d), Fla. . . . Section 120.57(l)(e), unlike section'120.56/provides immediate relief. . . . Under section 120.56, if an agency initiates rulemaking to adopt the challenged policy statement, the . . .

LOONEY, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 185 So. 3d 1303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . argument must be raised before an administrative law judge in a proceeding conducted pursuant to section 120.56 . . .

NEWMAN, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 185 So. 3d 1303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . argument must be raised before an administrative law judge in a proceeding conducted pursuant to section 120.56 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. VANAMBURG, 174 So. 3d 640 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . and unlike other cases in which ALJs have final order authority (e.g., rule challenges under section 120.56 . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, v. In S. B., 176 So. 3d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . validity of the rule without the issue first going through an administrative challenge under Section 120.56 . . .

VUONG, DUI, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,, 149 So. 3d 174 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 120.56(l)(e), (8), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

G. B. Z. L. K. L. J. H. M. R. v. AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES,, 143 So. 3d 454 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 120.56(2)(a), Fla. Stat. . . .

M. WINICK, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,, 161 So. 3d 464 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . See § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (2012). . . . fjailure to proceed under this section shall not constitute failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” § 120.56 . . . Florida Statutes, and Chapters 65A-1, 65A-2 and 65A-4 of the Florida Administrative Code. .Section 120.56 . . .

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, a v. TRAPEO,, 136 So. 3d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . . § 120.56(4)(b), Fla. . . .

AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, v. C. B. Z. H. Y. S. Z. W. M. C. M., 130 So. 3d 713 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 120.56(1)(e), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 120.56(4), Fla. Stat. . . .

OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION, v. SECURE ENTERPRISES, LLC., 124 So. 3d 332 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . In May 2012, Appellee filed a rule challenge pursuant to section-120.56, Florida Statutes, in which it . . . Pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes, “Any person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed . . . officer's conclusion that certain appellees had standing to- maintain the rule challenge under section 120.56 . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, v. PETER R. BROWN CONSTRUCTION, INC., 108 So. 3d 723 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Section 120.56(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that “[a]ny person substantially affected by . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, v. BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d b a St. s d b a St. s HCA d b a HCA d b a, 134 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Four existing trauma centers in the State of Florida brought a rule challenge pursuant to sections 120.56 . . .

J. S. v. C. M. L. C. J. S. L. L. J. F. C. A, s, 135 So. 3d 312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Invalidity of Agency Statements with the Division of Administrative Hearings as authorized by section 120.56 . . . (4), provides as follows: (4) Challenges to agency action pursuant to section 120.56(4).— (a) If the . . . Notice to the agency may be satisfied by its receipt of a copy of the s. 120.56(4) petition, a notice . . . In a challenge to an agency action under section 120.56(4), paragraph (b) provides that, upon notice . . . Our interpretation of section 120.56(4) is further supported by its Legislative history. . . .

UNITED STATES DAVIS v. U. S. TRAINING CENTER, INC., 829 F. Supp. 2d 329 (E.D. Va. 2011)

. . . & Parking ($48.00)_ $ 996.89 $ 493.44 8/5/2011 Fred Roitz Westin Hotel-3 nights ($914.41) _& Food ($120.56 . . .

ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, v. H. MOLICA M., 83 So. 3d 765 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . This issue should have been decided in a proceeding brought under section 120.56, Florida Statutes (2008 . . .

WHILEY, v. SCOTT,, 79 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 2011)

. . . .” § 120.56(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . judge (ALJ) must hold a hearing on the petition challenging the rule within a specified timeframe. § 120.56 . . . invalid, the proposed rule may not be adopted unless the ALJ’s determination is reversed on appeal. § 120.56 . . . See, e.g., § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (2010); § 120.68(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . existing rule is partially or wholly invalid, the rule is void after the time for appeal expires. § 120.56 . . .

WADE, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 57 So. 3d 869 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . a duly promulgated administrative rule, although presumptively valid until invalidated in a section 120.56 . . .

OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION v. SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 50 So. 3d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Section 120.56(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the parameters of an ALJ’s jurisdiction to . . . determination of the invalidity of an existing rule at any time during the existence of the rule.” § 120.56 . . . While this holding may be a good policy, it does not reflect the plain language of section 120.56(3), . . . See § 120.56(3)(a) (“A substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the . . .

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, v. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 15 So. 3d 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 120.56 Proceeding This proceeding began on August 17, 2007, when Mylan filed a petition seeking . . . Subsection 120.56(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that “[a]ny person substantially affected . . . Further, Abbott argues that the plain language of section 120.56(3)(b) states that the rule becomes void . . . Society of Ophthalmology, 538 So.2d 878, 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988): The statutory scheme [of section 120.56 . . . Applying the underlying section 120.56(3) to this case, we hold that rule 21Q-10.001, which was held . . .

COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, v. FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, v. v., 993 So. 2d 69 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . that rule 68D-23.105(l)(b) is invalid, the argument must be made in a proceeding pursuant to section 120.56 . . . 120.52(7) defines a final order as a written final decision which results from a proceeding under s. 120.56 . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHAMBERLAIN, v. MANASALA,, 982 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . If the appeal is of an order rendered in a proceeding initiated under s. 120.56, the agency whose rule . . .

ROSENZWEIG, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,, 979 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Accordingly, the supreme court enunciated the following: To meet the requirements of section 120.56(1 . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, v. CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL- MIDDLE REGION W., 969 So. 2d 527 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . On September 19, 2007, a petition styled “Rule Challenge Petition Pursuant to 120.56(4)” was filed with . . .

COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES OF FLORIDA s s ALS s SIDS St. s s v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES,, 961 So. 2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . a petition with the appropriate agency, “[ejxcept for any proceeding conducted as prescribed by s. 120.56 . . . Department argues that because petitioners have challenged a rule, a proceeding countenanced by section 120.56 . . . Contrary to the Department’s argument, this is not simply a proceeding as prescribed in section 120.56 . . . See § 120.56(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

VALE, v. R. McDONOUGH,, 958 So. 2d 966 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . presumptively valid, or merely voidable, and must be given legal effect until invalidated in a section 120.56 . . .

R. MYERS, v. FLORIDA CIVIL COMMITMENT CENTER s, 953 So. 2d 726 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . See § 120.56(4), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . presented a prima facie challenge alleging policy F-24 to be a non-rule policy, pursuant to section 120.56 . . .

VOLUSIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, v. VOLUSIA HOMES BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 946 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . substantial evidence factual findings made by an administrative law judge in a rule challenge under section 120.56 . . .

SCHOOL BOARD OF OSCEOLA COUNTY G. F. On G. F. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,, 933 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . The appellants challenge a final order by which an administrative law judge dismissed their section 120.56 . . .

KEEN, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL,, 920 So. 2d 805 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . 120.57(2) applies in all other cases. ... (2)(a) Except for any proceeding conducted as prescribed in s. 120.56 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, v. W. MERRITT, D. C. v. W. D. C., 919 So. 2d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Appellee Richard Merritt, a licensed chiropractor, initiated the underlying section 120.56, Florida Statutes . . . Department during its rulemaking proceedings as well as evidence presented for the first time at the section 120.56 . . . 120.52(8) so as to eliminate the former subsection (f) and, in the same chapter law, amended section 120.56 . . . Department during its rulemaking proceedings or was presented for the first time during the section 120.56 . . .

A. JACOBY, M. D. v. FLORIDA BOARD OF MEDICINE,, 917 So. 2d 358 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (2004), allows any person who is substantially affected by a rule or . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, 894 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2005)

. . . (A) In an appeal from any proceeding conducted pursuant to section 120.56 (rule challenges) or sections . . . This subdivision of the rule governs the record from proceedings conducted pursuant to section 120.56 . . . This is because section 120.56(l)(e), Florida Statutes, states that hearings under section 120.56, Florida . . .

WEXLER v. LEPORE, E., 342 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (S.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . Stat § 120.56(3), to determine the validity of the above rule. On August 27, 2004, Judge Susan B. . . .

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE, AND THE FLORIDA PROBATE RULES, 887 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2004)

. . . (A) In an appeal from any proceeding conducted pursuant to section 120.56 (rule challenges) or sections . . . This subdivision of the rule governs the record from proceedings conducted pursuant to section 120.56 . . . This is because section 120.56(l)(e), Florida Statutes, states that hearings under section 120.56, Florida . . .

WEXLER, v. LEPORE, E., 878 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (2003). . . .

ORTIZ, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE,, 882 So. 2d 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 120.56(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . .

OSTERBACK, v. O. AGWUNOBI,, 873 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Section 120.56(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2000), provides: The failure of an agency to follow the applicable . . .

V. CLEMONS, v. STATE RISK MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND, 870 So. 2d 881 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . proceeding will deem controlling duly promulgated administrative rules never challenged under section 120.56 . . . Willis, 344 So.2d 580, 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (“[P]rovisions [now codified at section 120.56(1)(e) ] . . .

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, v. HHCI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d b a d b a d b a, 865 So. 2d 593 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . fact, the statutory subsection in question governs “CHALLENGES TO AGENCY ACTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.56 . . . Section 120.56(4)(a), of course, provides, “Any person substantially affected by an agency [non-rule] . . . “shall immediately discontinue all rebanee upon the statement ... as a basis for agency action.” § 120.56 . . . intent in devising a statute to allow attorney’s fees for successful challenges based upon section 120.56 . . . well as any fees incurred in proving entitlement to attorney’s fees for efforts beyond the section 120.56 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. SHERATON BAL HARBOUR ASSOCIATION, LTD., 864 So. 2d 454 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . The Department contends that section 120.56, Florida Statutes does not authorize a rule challenge to . . .

BROWARD CHILDREN S CENTER, INC. v. HALL,, 859 So. 2d 623 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . duly promulgated administrative rule, although ‘presumptively valid until invalidated in a section 120.56 . . .

NAACP, INC. v. FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS,, 863 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2003)

. . . The petitioners brought the rule challenge pursuant to section 120.56(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), . . . court’s restriction on the standing of associations is an excessively narrow construction of section 120.56 . . . that a trade or professional association should be able to institute a rule challenge under section 120.56 . . . To meet the requirements of section 120.56(1), an association must demonstrate that a substantial number . . . As in Florida Home Builders, we conclude the First District has again construed section 120.56(1) too . . . The present case is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999 . . . This brings into focus the question of whether those rules can be challenged in accord with section 120.56 . . . Secondary to this question is the question posed by petitioners as to what, if section 120.56 does not . . .

JENKINS, v. STATE v., 855 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . See, § 120.56(4)(e), Florida Statutes; Exclusive Inv. Mgmt. & Consultants, Inc. v. . . . Section 120.56(4)(e), states that an agency “shall be permitted to rely upon” an unpromul-gated rule, . . . [I]t becomes clear that the purpose of a section 120.56(4) proceeding is to force or require agencies . . . 120.56(4) proceeding (and presumably attorney’s fees and costs) if, prior to entry of a final order . . . Section 120.56(4)(e) was revised by chapter 2003-94, Laws of Florida. . . .

D. WILKINSON, v. FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION,, 853 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . And while the appellant now asserts that he did not have standing for a § 120.56 rule challenge, it would . . . appear that he was substantially affected by the rule so as to be accorded standing under section 120.56 . . . appellant did not present a basis for bypassing the administrative remedy available through a section 120.56 . . .

CARVER, v. STATE DIVISION OF RETIREMENT,, 848 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . recognizing the proposition that an administrative rule is presumptively valid until invalidated in a section 120.56 . . .

OSCEOLA FISH FARMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, 830 So. 2d 932 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . order denying its amended petition challenging an agency statement as an unadopted rule under section 120.56 . . . The Association argues that an agency’s compliance with section 120.56(4)(e) does not moot the issues . . . presented in a section 120.56(4) proceeding. . . . of a section 120.56(4) proceeding is to force or require agencies into the rule adoption process. . . . Because the ALJ found in this 120.56(4) proceeding that the District complied with section 120.56(4)( . . .

JONGEWAARD, v. STATE, 824 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . holding a duly promulgated administrative rule is “presumptively valid until invalidated in a section 120.56 . . .

AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, 827 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2002)

. . . (A)In an appeal from any proceeding conducted pursuant to section 120.56 (rule challenges) or sections . . . This subdivision of the rule governs the record from proceedings conducted pursuant to section 120.56 . . . This is because section 120.56(l)(e), Florida Statutes, states that hearings under section 120.56, Florida . . .

D. SARNOFF, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,, 825 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2002)

. . . Section 120.56 permits a person “substantially affected” by a rule to seek an administrative determination . . . See § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (2001). . . .

BRAZIL- US TRADING, LLC, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,, 814 So. 2d 540 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . See §§ 120.56, 120.57, and 499.066(5), Fla. Stat. (2002); White Constr. Co., Inc. v. . . .

R. GOVE, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,, 816 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . holding a duly promulgated administrative rule is “presumptively valid until invalidated in a section 120.56 . . .

NAACP, INC. NAACP, v. FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS, 822 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Appellants immediately filed a petition pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Stát-utes (1999), challenging . . . Section 120.56(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), states that only those who are “substantially affected . . . professional associations have standing in certain circumstances to challenge, pursuant to section 120.56 . . . ), Florida Statutes, an agency rule on behalf of their members: To meet the requirements of section 120.56 . . . To establish standing for purposes of section 120.56(1), the Garvins were both obliged to demonstrate . . . This right is not limited to persons “substantially affected” under section 120.56(l)(a), Florida Statutes . . .

FLORIDA BOARD OF MEDICINE, v. FLORIDA ACADEMY OF COSMETIC SURGERY, INC. M. D. D. D. S. F. A. C. S. R. M. D. v., 808 So. 2d 243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . Section 120.56(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that “[a]ny person substantially affected by . . . professional associations have standing in certain circumstances to challenge, pursuant to section 120.56 . . . CHALLENGE ANALYSIS The petitioner has the burden of going forward in a rule challenge proceeding. § 120.56 . . . have standing to challenge any rule or proposed rule of a board under its jurisdiction pursuant to s. 120.56 . . . the legislature intended that any “substantially affected” person (as that term is used in section 120.56 . . .

STATE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, v. DAY CRUISE ASSOCIATION, INC., 798 So. 2d 847 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . the procedural course open to Day Cruise was clear: a challenge to the proposed rule under section 120.56 . . . the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.” § 120.56 . . .

STATE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, v. DAY CRUISE ASSOCIATION, INC., 794 So. 2d 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . (Day Cruise) raised the question in a rule challenge brought under section 120.56(2), Florida Statutes . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONSUMER SERVICES v. CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, a a a R. N. a a a a a, 792 So. 2d 539 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), provides, “Any person substantially affected by an agency . . . Furthermore, pursuant to section 120.56(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), “Any person substantially affected . . . Thus, both sections 120.68 and 120.56 set forth administrative remedies which Appellees failed to exhaust . . .

BOARD OF PODIATRIC MEDICINE, v. FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,, 779 So. 2d 658 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . The appellee initiated a section 120.56, Florida Statutes, rule challenge proceeding contesting the validity . . .

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE v. SUPPORT TERMINALS OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L. P. B. Sr. P. J. V. J. V. Jr., 776 So. 2d 337 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . 2000), defines a “final order” as “a written final decision which results from a proceeding under s. 120.56 . . . .... ” The order at issue here clearly “results from” a proceeding under section 120.56, since the successful . . . prosecution of a challenge to a proposed rule pursuant to section 120.56(2) is a necessary precondition . . .

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. CHARLOTTE COUNTY,, 774 So. 2d 903 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . parties filed numerous petitions for administrative proceedings pursuant to sections 120.535, 120.54, and 120.56 . . . However, as noted in Consolidated-Tomoka, section 120.56(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), was amended . . . and the reasons that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.” § 120.56 . . . The court in Consolidated-Tomoka concluded that “[njothing in section 120.56(2) requires the agency to . . . The court noted that the burden of persuasion in a challenge to an agency statement under section 120.56 . . .

JOHNSON, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 771 So. 2d 601 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . terms, section 120.595(2) authorizes an award of attorney’s fees in a rule challenge under section 120.56 . . .

AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, 780 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2000)

. . . (A) In an appeal from any proceeding conducted pursuant to section 120.56 (rule challenges) or sections . . . This subdivision of the rule governs the record from proceedings conducted pursuant to section 120.56 . . . This is because section 120.56(l)(e), Florida Statutes, states that hearings under section 120.56, Florida . . .

BELL, v. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,, 768 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . substantially affected by the Florida Rule, and therefore has standing to challenge its validity under section 120.56 . . .

CITY OF WINTER PARK v. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR ORLANDO URBAN AREA, v., 765 So. 2d 797 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Section 120.569(2)(e), applicable to proceedings under section 120.56, requires that, in the event a . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, v. FLORIDA BANKERS ASSOCIATION,, 764 So. 2d 660 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . 120.595(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: Challenges to proposed agency rules pursuant to section 120.56 . . . administrative law judge declares a proposed rule or portion of a proposed rule invalid pursuant to s. 120.56 . . .

R. CADDY, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY,, 764 So. 2d 625 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . See § 120.56(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). . . .

LANOUE, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,, 751 So. 2d 94 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Section 120.56(1), Florida Statutes (1997), sets forth the procedures for challenging the validity, of . . . Section 120.56(l)(a) provides that “[a]ny person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule . . .

J. QUIGLEY, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,, 745 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . .1992)), prisoners have been forbidden to maintain challenges to administrative rules under section 120.56 . . . of the kind available when a party who is not a prisoner challenges an existing rule under section 120.56 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. NOVOA,, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . substantially affected by an agency statement not adopted as a rule, may file a petition under section 120.56 . . .

FLORIDA MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT v. S. PRINGLE, Jr., 736 So. 2d 17 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Under section 120.56(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), Messrs. . . .

ALOHA UTILITIES, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,, 723 So. 2d 919 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . Aloha’s and FWA’s amended petition did not meet threshold pleading requirements laid down by section 120.56 . . . Section 120.56(4)(a) imposes specific pleading requirements for petitions challenging agency statements . . . that the agency has not adopted the statement by the rulemaking procedure provided by s. 120.54. § 120.56 . . . Schluter was challenging under section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). . . . of procedure challenged, to “include the text of the statement or a description of the statement,” § 120.56 . . .

SAVONA, D. O. F. D. O. L. M. D. v. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,, 717 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . nor published notice of a proposed rule prior to the entry of the final order, as required by section 120.56 . . .

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, BOARD OF CLINICAL LABORATORY PERSONNEL, v. FLORIDA COALITION OF PROFESSIONAL LABORATORY ORGANIZATIONS, INC., 718 So. 2d 869 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . See § 120.56(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). . . . The ALJ concluded that the amended provisions of section 120.56(2), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), placing . . .

BOARD OF CLINICAL LABORATORY PERSONNEL, v. FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF BLOOD BANKS,, 721 So. 2d 317 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Florida Statutes section 120.56(2)(c) provides that in a rule challenge proceeding, the proposed rule . . . rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised.” § 120.56 . . . In the instant case, the order of the ALJ states: “Section 120.56(2), Florida Statutes, ... requires . . .

ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, v. CONSOLIDATED- TOMOKA LAND CO. IDI- IDI- IDI- E. S. Jr. W. R. J. II, S. P. S. P. S. P. III, 717 So. 2d 72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . (3), as well as a proceeding to challenge an agency statement defined as a rule, see section 120.56(4 . . . ), the burden of persuasion is now reversed in a proceeding under section 120.56(2) to challenge a proposed . . . According to section 120.56(2)(c) Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), a proposed rule is “not presumed to be . . . However, section 120.56(2)(a) Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), plainly requires the agency to establish . . . Nothing in section 120.56(2) requires the agency to carry the burden of presenting evidence to disprove . . .

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, v. CALDER RACE COURSE, INC. a a a, 724 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . proving that a proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under section 120.56 . . .

ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, v. ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST, L. P. LLC,, 714 So. 2d 493 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Hood’s decision, Environmental Trust and five other investment companies filed petitions under section 120.56 . . . is no longer available, but that does not render the rule “invalid” as that term is used in section 120.56 . . . Consequently, we reverse the final order by Administrative Law Judge Ruff in the proceeding under section 120.56 . . .

REIFF, D. v. NORTHEAST FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL,, 710 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . appeals dismissal of the rule challenge he brought against his employer under sections 120.535 and 120.56 . . .

M. ARIAS, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE,, 710 So. 2d 655 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . guidelines establish a meaningful range of penalties and may also challenge such rules pursuant to s. 120.56 . . .

SECURITY MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, v. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND STATE TREASURER,, 707 So. 2d 929 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . The final order under review granted in part Security Mutual’s petition alleging, under section 120.56 . . . include exceptions not applicable here) provides: (4) CHALLENGES TO AGENCY ACTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.56 . . .

BEVERLY HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, INC. d b a v. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,, 708 So. 2d 616 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . respect to its facility doing business as Advantage Therapy and Nursing Center, pursuant to section 120.56 . . . 4.128 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as contemplated by section 120.56 . . . the instant proceeding is not, however, a proper challenge to the validity of a rule under section 120.56 . . . however, is without prejudice to appellant seeking appropriate relief in proceedings under sections 120.56 . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, v. SCHLUTER, 705 So. 2d 81 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . 120.54, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), or its predecessors — cannot withstand challenge under section 120.56 . . . statements made by an agency in circumvention of rule-making requirements justify the grant of a section 120.56 . . . Even though the original petition was filed earlier, section 120.56, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), has . . . Straughn nor .Matthews arose from administrative challenges to illicit rules brought under section 120.56 . . . never actually "states” should be deemed an unpromulgated rule susceptible to challenge under section 120.56 . . .

WILLETTE, v. AIR PRODUCTS, 700 So. 2d 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . court,” the Department argues that, because no rule challenge proceeding was instituted under section 120.56 . . . pursuant to this section [120.68], except to review an order entered pursuant to a proceeding under s. 120.56 . . . statutory construction that amounts to passing on the validity of a rule not challenged in a section 120.56 . . . must give an administrative rule effect, unless it has been invalidated in proceedings under section 120.56 . . . duly promulgated administrative rule, although “presumptively valid until invalidated in a section 120.56 . . .

J. HILL, v. DIVISION OF RETIREMENT,, 687 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Procedure Act defines a final order as “a written final decision which results from a proceeding under s. 120.56 . . .

S. CASERTA, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,, 686 So. 2d 651 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . Each final order resulting from a proceeding under s. 120.535, s. 120.54(4), or s. 120.56. § 120.53(2 . . .