CopyCited 284 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 48 Fed. R. Serv. 143, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 25183, 1997 WL 546880
counterfeit Japanese bonds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 479; (2) to possess and deliver false and counterfeit
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Section 131(d) authorized the Secretary of Transportation to enter into agreements with the several states to determine the size, lighting, and spacing of signs, consistent with customary use and the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1971), authorized the governor to execute an agreement with the appropriate agents of the United States to carry out the purposes of the Highway Beautification Act....
...A billboard, 45 feet long and 14 feet high, was erected in May, 1972 within 168 feet of an existing sign. In August, 1972, DOT sought a mandatory injunction against B & B alleging the sign violated the spacing regulations of the agreement as well as Section 479.02. B & B first argues the agreement is an unlawful delegation of authority from the legislature to the executive branch. We find, however, DOT had ample enforcement powers under Section 479.02 aside from the agreement....
...bject to the following: (1) Size shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (2) Spacing shall be 1,000 feet on interstate and 500 feet on primary on the same side of the highway facing the same direction. (3) Lighting subject to agreement established by section 479.02, Florida Statutes." (Emphasis supplied.) Had all the provisions of the above statute been in force when the sign was erected in May, 1972, B & B would clearly have been on notice of the spacing requirements of Section 479.02. However, Section 479.02 was amended, effective April 21, 1972, by Chapter 72-274, Laws of Florida, as follows: "Enforcement of provisions by department....
...commercial and industrial areas, and to regulate signs relating to food, lodging, camping, vehicle service and attractions subject to current federal regulations. " (Emphasis in original.) The dispositive question concerning the constitutionality of 479.02 [1] for purposes of this appeal is whether the phrase "subject to current federal regulations" passes muster....
...section 20.7(b)(2), effective January 1, 1972. Since the spacing regulation was in effect and properly incorporated into Florida law by Chapter 72-274 at the time the billboard was erected by B & B the trial court was correct in finding a violation of § 479.02. Therefore B & B Advertising's attack on the agreement of January 27, 1972 is without merit. [2] DOT has sufficient authority not only to enforce the agreement but also to enforce the remaining provisions of Section 479.02....
...ses and off premises. These arguments may be summarily dealt with since B & B lacks standing to challenge the validity of the statute's sections it is not specifically charged with violating. It is only affected by the spacing regulation set down by § 479.02 and 23 C.F.R....
...We therefore affirm the trial judge's summary final judgment in all respects except as to the compensation due. We remand for consideration of the cost of such materials. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. BOYER, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 479.02, as it now appears in Florida Statutes, has been reworked by the editors with some resulting confusion: "479.02 Enforcement of provisions by department....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2285, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5309, 1989 WL 110924
...of Medical Examiners,
458 So.2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied,
462 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 1985); §
120.68(10), Fla. Stat. (1987). Chapter 479, Florida Statutes (1987), provides for the regulation of outdoor advertising signs adjacent to designated highways in Florida. §
479.02(2), Fla....
...Calio involved private individuals who agreed to a definition of a statutory term. Here, Hancock and the DOT are not contracting parties; moreover, they did not agree to the definition of the term "on." The intent of the legislature in enacting this chapter is to regulate signs adjacent to regulated highways. § 479.02(2), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...d at
382 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), in which the court held that the Department of Transportation need not compensate the owner of a billboard sign under section
479.24, Florida Statutes (1977), for requiring the sign's removal for violation of section
479.02(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....
...hosen. The Highway Beautification Act of 1965, 23 U.S.C. § 131 (1976), requires 1000-foot spacing between billboards located on federal highways; DOT is charged with enforcing this provision. [2] *1371 DOT thereafter cited LaPointe for violation of section
479.02, erecting a sign within 1000 feet of a permitted sign, and section
479.07(1), erecting a sign without a valid permit, and ordered the billboard's removal....
...We consequently approve the instant district court decision and disapprove the decision of the First District in Brazil. [3] It is so ordered. SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. [2] Section 479.02(1) provides: 479.02 Enforcement of provisions by department....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8512, 2009 WL 1741035
...ional"); Brazil v. Div. of Admin., State Dep't of Transp.,
347 So.2d 755, 757-58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (holding that it would be permissible for DOT to remove a sign which violated the spacing requirement which was part of the federal regulations when section
479.02, containing the phrase "subject to current federal regulations," became effective, but it would be unconstitutional to construe the statute as allowing the legislature to adopt, in advance, any federal act or ruling); see generally F....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15490, 2002 WL 31373490
...Here, the statutes and rules relate to the federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965, codified as amended at 23 U.S.C. section 131, which provides that outdoor advertising signs should be controlled to promote safety and to provide natural beauty. See § 479.02(1), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1748, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9300
...l for the primary purpose of permitting outdoor advertising structures. Declining to recognize such zoning, DOT ordered that appellant's signs be removed. Appellant now asserts that DOT lacks regulatory authority within municipal *35 boundaries. But section 479.02(2), Florida Statutes, expressly directs DOT to regulate advertising signs along the interstate highway system without limitation as to the location of such highways....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16109
...Bennett, Trial Atty., and H. Reynolds Sampson, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellee. BERANEK, Judge. La Pointe Outdoor Advertising appeals final agency action by the Department of Transportation ordering removal of its outdoor advertising sign found to violate Sections
479.02 and
479.07(1), Florida Statutes (1977), and denying compensation for its removal....
...s) had previously been issued for a site within 1000 feet of La Pointe's selected location. On March 24, 1977, the Department of Transportation sent La Pointe a letter advising it that its sign, located within 1000 feet of a permitted sign, violated Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1977)....
...itially filed should be treated as an appeal governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(C). On the merits, La Pointe initially challenges the Department of Transportation's authority to enforce the 1000 foot spacing requirement. [1] Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1971), authorized the Governor to execute an agreement with the Secretary of Transportation to carry out the purposes of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965....
...The order of the Department of Transportation of June 28, 1978, is thus affirmed. AFFIRMED. DOWNEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. NOTES [1] LaPointe's brief does not contest the Department's findings regarding the permit violation. (§ 497.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1977).) [2] 479.02 Enforcement of provisions by department....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Florida enacted chapter 479, Florida Statutes (1979), implementing the federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965, 23 U.S.C. § 131 (Supp. 1979), and making the Florida Department of Transportation responsible for administering and enforcing the Act. § 479.02, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2663, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5405, 1988 WL 130475
...Ferguson and Thomas H. Bateman, III, Tallahassee, for appellee. RYDER, Judge. This is an appeal from a final order of the Department of Transportation (DOT) holding that appellant's business establishment sign was erected in violation of section
479.105 and section
479.02(1), Florida Statutes (1987), and ordering the sign's removal....
...After reviewing the case, the hearing officer held: Section
479.07, Florida Statutes, prohibits the erection of signs on the interstate highway system without a permit; Section
479.105 provides for the removal of signs which require permits and do not have same; and Section
479.02 authorizes the Department of Transportation to regulate the spacing of signs on the interstate system....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1946, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9627
...In its final order, DOT adopted the recommendation and revoked Tri-State's sign permits. It was not found that "Dave's Garage" was not a bona fide business when the permit was originally approved. We hold that Tri-State has not been shown to have violated section
479.08. Section
479.02(3) requires DOT to "determine unzoned commercial areas and unzoned industrial areas" when that is the basis for an application....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 826741
...In order to secure its full share of federal highway funds, Florida has entered into an agreement (the federal-state agreement) with the United States Department of Transportation relating to the size, lighting, and spacing of signs in accordance with the requirements of the federal act and federal regulations. Pursuant to section 479.02(1), Florida Statutes, administration and enforcement of the agreement have been delegated to the appellee, and the appellee has adopted rules consistent with this responsibility....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 5744443, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 16981
...To the extent that the language of this statute is ambiguous, which both sides have conceded at points, our conclusion foreclosing the statute’s process and remedies to Appellants' signs finds support in FDOT’s own interpretation of the law that it is charged with administering. See, e.g., § 479.02, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16167
...Section 131(d) authorized the Secretary of Transportation to enter into agreements with the several states to determine the size, lighting, and spacing of signs, consistent with customary use and the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1971), authorized the governor to execute an agreement with the appropriate agents of the United States to carry out the purposes of the Highway Beautification Act....
...A billboard, 45 feet long and 14 feet high, was erected in May, 1972 within 168 feet of an existing sign. In August, 1972, DOT sought a mandatory injunction against B & B alleging the sign violated the spacing regulations of the agreement as well as Section 479.02. B & B first argues the agreement is an unlawful delegation of authority from the legislature to the executive branch. We find, however, DOT had ample enforcement powers under Section 479.02 aside from the agreement....
...subject to the following: (1) Size shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (2) Spacing shall be 1,000 feet on interstate and 500 feet on primary on the same side of the highway facing the same direction. (3)Lighting—subject to agreement established by section 479.02, Florida Statutes.” (Emphasis supplied.) Had all the provisions of the above statute been in force when the sign was erected in May, 1972, B & B would clearly have been on notice of the spacing requirements of Section 479.02. However, Section 479.02 was amended, effective April 21, 1972, by Chapter 72-274, Laws of Florida, as follows: “Enforcement of provisions by department.—It shall be the function and duty of the department to administer and enforce the provisions of this c...
...ommercial and industrial areas, and to regulate signs relating to food, lodging, camping, vehicle service and attractions subject to current federal regulations.” (Emphasis in original.) The dispositive question concerning the constitutionality of 479.02 1 for purposes of this appeal is whether the phrase “subject to current federal regulations” passes muster....
...section 20.7(b)(2), effective January 1, 1972. Since the spacing regulation was in effect and properly incorporated into Florida law by Chapter 72-274 at the time the billboard was erected by B & B the trial court was correct in finding a violation of § 479.02. Therefore B & B Advertising’s attack on the agreement of January 27, 1972 is without merit. 2 DOT has sufficient authority not only to enforce the agreement but also to enforce the remaining provisions of Section 479.02....
...d off premises. These arguments may be summarily dealt with since B & B lacks standing to challenge the validity of the statute’s sections it is not specifically charged with violating. It is only affected by the spacing regulation set down by § 479.02 and 23 C.F.R....
...We therefore affirm the trial judge’s summary final judgment in all respects except as to the compensation due. We remand for consideration of the cost of such materials. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur. . Section 479.02, as it now appears in Florida Statutes, has been reworked by the editors with some resulting confusion: “479.02 Enforcement of provisions by department.—It shall be the function and duty of the department to: (1) Administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter including, but not limited to, executing agreements in conjunction with the governor i...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 70, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 11036
improperly permitted, erected or maintained. § 479.-02, Fla.Stat. (1988); rule 14-10.02, Fla.Admin.Code
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11592, 2009 WL 2513472
...b). In support of this petition, appellant alleged the sections of the Florida Statutes which Rule 14-10.007 states that it implements, do not, in fact, provide the necessary authorization to promulgate the rule. The ALJ disagreed and found sections
479.02(1) and
339.05, Florida Statutes (2007), provide support for the rule and, thus, the ALJ denied the petition....
...agency. Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Day Cruise Ass'n, Inc.,
794 So.2d 696, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see also Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.,
773 So.2d at 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). First, we find the ALJ erred in determining that section
479.02 authorizes Rule 14-10.007(2)(b). Section
479.02(1) makes it "the duty of the department to:" Administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter and the agreement between the state and the United States Department of Transportation relating to the size, lighting, and spacing of signs in accordance with Title I of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and Title 23, United States Code, and federal regulations in effect as of the effective date of this act. (Emphasis added). FDOT asserted, and the ALJ held, that because section
479.02(1) authorizes FDOT to "administer and enforce" the Federal-State agreement in accordance with title I of the Highway Beautification Act and title 23 of the United States Code, as well as federal regulations, the provisions for regulating nonconforming signs found in 23 C.F.R. § 750.707 are included by reference and provide the necessary authority for Rule 14-10.007(2)(b). [2] Further, the ALJ held that because the State may determine for itself the line between maintenance and substantial change, and because section
479.02(1) allocates this determination to FDOT, section
479.02(1) provides the necessary support for Rule 14-10.007(2)(b). Section
479.02(1), however, limits the ability of the executive branch to enforce the federal regulations to only "size, lighting, and spacing." Section
479.02(1), therefore, cannot provide the necessary authority for Rule 14-10.007(2)(b). In contrast to section
479.02(1), subsection (2) contains the word "height." It provides in pertinent part that it is the duty of appellee to "regulate size, height, lighting, and spacing of signs permitted in zoned and unzoned commercial areas...." (emphasis added)....
...relating to the same subject or object be construed together to harmonize the statutes and to give effect to the Legislature's intent." Fla. Dep't of State, Div. of Elections *803 v. Martin,
916 So.2d 763, 768 (Fla. 2005). Because subsection (1) of section
479.02 only mentions "size, lighting, and spacing" and subsection (2) deals with "size, height, lighting, and spacing," while subsection (8) mentions "size, height, and structure type," this indicates that the legislature intended to consider "size" and "height" separately....
...Embellishments may be added to nonconforming signs subject to the limitations regarding size of sign facing, and provided they do not exceed 10% of the area of the sign facing prior to the addition of the embellishment; ... Specific Authority
334.044(2),
479.02(7) FS. Law Implemented
339.05,
479.02,
479.07(9) FS....
...Each State shall develop its own criteria to determine when customary maintenance ceases and a substantial change has occurred which would terminate nonconforming rights. 23 C.F.R. § 750.707 (emphasis added). [3] Similarly, the Federal-State agreement of 1972, referred to in section 479.02(1), provides only for the State to regulate the size, lighting, and spacing of signs....
