CHARLOTTE COUNTY v. IMC-PHOSPHATES CO.

No. 1D02-1366.

824 So.2d 298 (2002)

CHARLOTTE COUNTY, Florida, Petitioner, v. IMC-PHOSPHATES COMPANY; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Manasota-88, Inc.; Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority; Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida; Lee County; Sarasota County; DeSoto Citizens Against Pollution, Inc.; Alan Behrens; and Joseph Fernandez, Respondents.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 22, 2002.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., David M. Caldevilla and Vivian Arenas of de la Parte & Gilbert, Tampa; Martha Burton and Renee Francis Lee, Charlotte County Attorney's Office, Port Charlotte, for petitioner.

Steve L. Brannock of Holland & Knight, Tampa, Roger W. Sims of Holland & Knight, Orlando, Susan L. Stephens of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, and Patricia Petruff of Dye, Deitrich, Prather, Petruff & St. Paul, Bradenton, for respondent IMC-Phosphates Company.

Teri Donaldson, General Counsel, Maureen M. Malvern, Senior Assistant General Counsel and Betsy Hewitt, Deputy General Counsel, Tallahassee, for respondent State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection.

Aliki Moncrief, Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, Tallahassee, for respondents Manasota-88 and Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida.

Douglas Manson and David Pearce of Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker & Manson, Tampa, for respondent Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority.

Jorge L. Fernandez, County Attorney, and Gary K. Oldehoff, Assistant County Attorney, Sarasota, for respondent Sarasota County.

James G. Yaeger, Lee County Attorney, and Thomas L. Wright, Assistant County Attorney, Fort Myers, for respondent Lee County.

Alan R. Behrens, President, Arcadia, for respondents DeSoto Citizens Against Pollution, Inc., and Joseph Fernandez.


WOLF, J.

Charlotte County petitions this court for a writ of prohibition, seeking review of an order of David Struhs, as Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which denied the county's motion for disqualification.1 We conclude that the county's motion was facially sufficient and should have been granted; therefore, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases