Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

493 So. 2d 74

493 So.2d 74

11 Fla.L.Weekly 1861

Monroe County v. Graham

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 26, 1986

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-08-26

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 2003

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“in the nature of a shield against the state's thrust,”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including AHCA v. St. John Medical Plans, Inc., 841 So. 2d 612 - FLA. DEPT. OF INS., DIV. OF RISK MANAGEMENT v. Amador

Relies on 354 So. 2d 362 - Carlile v. GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COM'N · FLORIDA PUBLIC SERV. v. Triple" A" Enterprises · 472 So. 2d 803 - Graham v. Edwards

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-08-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Monroe County, the plaintiff below, seeks review of an order transferring the cause to Leon County. The trial judge based his ruling upon the following findings:

1. The Defendants, being Governor Bob Graham, and agencies of the State of Florida, are all located or headquartered in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. It is well established that venue in civil actions brought against the state or its agencies lies where the state or agency maintains its principle headquarters, unless there is a waiver or exception to the venue privilege. Carlile v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 354 So.2d 362 (Fla 1977); Graham v. Edwards 472 So.2d 803 (Fla 3rd DCA 1985).
2. Plaintiff Monroe County’s Complaint shows that this suit involves a challenge to, and an attempt to invalidate, Chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, consisting of amended rules adopted by the Defendant Florida Administration Commission that are presumptively applicable within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, designated pursuant to Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes (1985).
3. The challenged rule amendments have been adopted and in effect since July, 1984. Furthermore, there is no Plaintiff who alleges that his personal property rights have been invaded or di*75rectly affected by the application of said Administration Commission Rules. Under these circumstances, the “sword wielder doctrine” relied upon by Plaintiff is not applicable, as there is no actual or threatened invasion of rights by the state, and Plaintiff’s suit is not in the nature of a shield against the state’s thrust. No exception to, or waiver of, the state’s venue privilege is present.

¶2We fully agree with the determination below. See Florida Public Service Commission v. Triple “A” Enterprises, 387 So.2d 940 (Fla.1980).

¶3Affirmed.

/493/so2d/74 · .json · Public domain