Opinion ID: 1835478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Decisional Finality

Text: Before issuing the order that is currently being appealed, the PSC had issued prior orders regarding the disputed territory. These orders indicated the PSC's desire that the two parties reach a territorial agreement. One order provided that if the parties were unable to agree, the PSC would impose boundaries in areas where further conflict is likely. Gulf Coast argues that the PSC was therefore bound to establish boundaries in light of the prior orders. The doctrine of decisional finality provides that there must be a terminal point in every proceeding both administrative and judicial, at which the parties and the public may rely on a decision as being final and dispositive of the rights and issues involved therein. Austin Tupler Trucking, Inc. v. Hawkins, 377 So.2d 679, 681 (Fla.1979). Once a decision has become final for these purposes, it may be modified if there is a significant change in circumstances or a great public interest is served by the modification. See id. However, we have cautioned against a too doctrinaire application of the rule. McCaw Communications of Florida, Inc. v. Clark, 679 So.2d 1177, 1179 (Fla.1996) (quoting Peoples Gas System, Inc. v. Mason, 187 So.2d 335, 339 (Fla.1966)). In this case, we find that the PSC's earlier orders were statements of intent, not fully litigated orders disposing of the issue. Austin, 377 So.2d at 681. The docket was specifically left open for a future evidentiary hearing to resolve Gulf Coast's petition. As the PSC explained, the purpose of the hearing was to explore the situation in south Washington and Bay Counties in its entirety before deciding whether boundaries should be imposed. Both parties had an opportunity to be heard at this hearing and present evidence on their behalf. After considering the evidence, the PSC concluded that territorial boundaries should not be imposed at this time. Under these circumstances, the doctrine of decisional finality does not require a contrary result. Accordingly, the PSC's decision is hereby affirmed. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., SHAW and WELLS, JJ., and OVERTON and KOGAN, Senior Justices, concur. ANSTEAD, J., recused.