Defendant's Attorney: Attorney General of Florida

Description: Tallahassee, Florida civil Litigation administrative law lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued the State of Florida.

Because the record supports the judgment of the trial court, we affirm the orders dismissing Appellant’s third and fourth amended complaints challenging the rulemaking authority of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. See Art. IV, § 9, Fla. Const. (providing that the commission “shall exercise the regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life, and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life, except that all license fees for taking wild animal life, fresh water aquatic life, and marine life and penalties for violating regulations of the commission shall be prescribed by general law”); see also Caribbean Conservation Corp. v. Fla. Fish and Wildlife Comm’n, 838 So. 2d 492, 499 (Fla. 2003) (discussing the scope of the commission’s constitutional authority to regulate marine life and explaining that the commission’s authority did not extend to regulation of “endangered or threatened species of marine life”); Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (“[T]he ‘tipsy coachman’ doctrine[ ] allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that ‘reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons’ so long as ‘there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.’” (quoting Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 644 (Fla. 1999))).

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: