Case Name: SMURFIT INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Austill Packaging, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and City of Jacksonville, a municipal corporation, Appellees/Cross-Appellants
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-06-15
Citations: 620 So. 2d 1047
Docket Number: No. 91-3083
Parties: SMURFIT INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Austill Packaging, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and City of Jacksonville, a municipal corporation, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Judges: BOOTH, SMITH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 620
Pages: 1047–1047

Head Matter:
SMURFIT INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Austill Packaging, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and City of Jacksonville, a municipal corporation, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
No. 91-3083.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 15, 1993.
Rehearing Denied July 23, 1993.
Christopher D. Gray, James C. Rinaman, Jr., and Linda C. Ingham of Marks, Gray, Conroy & Gibbs, P.A., Jacksonville, Lynne A. Monaco of Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Rochester, New York, for appellant/cross-appellee.
John P. Ingle, Asst. General Counsel, Dept, of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellee/cross-appellant/DER.
John A. Delaney, General Counsel, Daniel D. Richardson, Deputy General Counsel, Jacksonville, for appellee/cross-appel-lant/City.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
With respect to the points on appeal urged by appellant, it appears that each involves either the trial court's interpretation of relevant provisions of the consent judgment entered into by the parties or whether there exists competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's factual findings.
The cross-appeal challenges the trial court's interpretation of the penalty provision contained in the above-mentioned consent judgment.
A painstaking review of the record on appeal persuades us that there is competent substantial evidence to support both the factual findings of the trial court and, further, that the trial court's interpretation of contested provisions of the consent judgment was not unreasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm on all points appealed or cross-appealed.
BOOTH, SMITH and MINER, JJ., concur.