G & B OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., D/B/A OUT OF SIGHT, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF BEVERAGE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed the suspension of a beverage license because the agency failed to prove by competent substantial evidence that the licensee was culpably responsible for an employee's alleged prostitution solicitation.
A beverage license may be suspended or revoked only upon competent substantial evidence that the licensee was culpably responsible for the violation through negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or lack of diligence.
[1] A beverage license suspension or revocation requires competent substantial evidence that the licensee was culpably responsible for the violation through its own negligenc…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Before a beverage license may be suspended or revoked it must be found by competent substantial evidence that the licensee was culpably responsible for the alleged violation as a result of its own negligence, intentional wrongdoing or lack of diligence.”
Court stating the legal standard required for suspension or revocation of a beverage license.
An employee of G & B of Jacksonville, Inc., operating as Out of Sight, allegedly offered to commit or engage in prostitution with a patron. The Depart…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intentional Wrongdoing cases and more on FLexlaw
MASON, (Circuit Judge, Retired) Associate Judge:
We reverse. In so doing we hold that the order of the respondent agency is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Especially is this true as to knowledge on the part of the licensee. We find that the record herein is completely void as to any knowledge on the part of the licensee or of any responsible officer or employee thereof as to the employee’s alleged violation of the law by offering to commit or engage in prostitution with a patron as charged. Before a beverage license may be suspended or revoked it must be found by competent substantial evidence that the licensee was culpably responsible for the al leged violation as a result of its own negligence, intentional wrongdoing or lack of diligence. There is no competent substantial evidence in this case proving that the alleged violation occurred as a result of such fault on the part of the licensee. See Woodbury v. State Beverage Department, 219 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). We note that the licensee was charged with but one single violation by an employee. There is no evidence that such activity was persistent or recurring. See Pauline v. Lee, 147 So. 2d 359, at p. 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
Reversed, and the order of the agency herein suspending the licensee’s license is set aside and revoked.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lash, Inc. v. State, 411 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…en the evidence showed only that on one occasion the licensee’s employees violated the laws, and that the licensee otherwise took measures to comply with them. See, e.g., G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State of Florida, Dept. of Business Regulation, 366 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (single violation by employee); Woodbury v. State Beverage Dept., 219 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969) (same); Taylor v. State Beverage Dept., 194 So. 2d 321 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1967) (same). Where, howev…
-
PIC N' Save Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 601 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the licensee was culpably responsible for such violation as a result of [*253] his own negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or lack of diligence.); G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, Etc., 366 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (Where alcoholic beverage license was revoked on the basis of a single violation of the law by an employee and there was no evidence that the viola-tive activity was persistent or recurring, the record did not contain competent,…
-
Gailyn W. Wheeler v. State, 472 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…cations on evidence disclosing that on only one occasion the licensee’s employees violated the laws or that the licensee otherwise took measures to comply with them, see, e.g., G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 366 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Woodbury v. State Beverage Department, 219 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Taylor v. State Beverage Department, 194 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1967), if however, the laws were repeatedly and flagr…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pauline v. LEE, 147 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Woodbury v. State Bev. Dep't of Fla., 219 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)