JAMES T. VOCELLE, AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, HIS AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, AND ALL THOSE CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER HIM,
v.
JOHN MALESZEWSKI, JR.
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's injunction against the revocation of a beer license, holding that a suit in equity is not the proper method to review administrative proceedings. The court found that common law certiorari is the appropriate remedy.
No, a suit in equity cannot be used to review the proceedings of a board, commission, or commissioner. Common law certiorari is the appropriate method for judicial review when no other method is prescribed.
“A suit in equity cannot be used for the purpose of procuring a review of the proceedings of a board, commission or commissioner.”
Establishes the principle that equity is not the proper venue for reviewing administrative decisions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee, a beer license holder, had his license revoked by the appellant, the Director of the State Beverage Department. The appellee filed a sui…
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 Judicial Review Of Administrative Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee held a beer license which was revoked after a hearing before the appellant, whereupon the appellee brought a suit in equity to restrain the revocation of the beer license.
The appellant filed his answer to the bill and a final hearing the chancellor entered a final decree enjoining the revocation of the license by the Director.
Appellant has assigned as error the action of the chancellor in denying appellant’s “motion to dismiss” plaintiff’s appellee’s bill.
This raises the question of whether or not the bill has equity. The only material allegations of the bill are that appellee has spent $11,000 in the purchase and improvement of his place of business; that he was a holder of a license to sell beer and that the Director-apellant gave him notice of revocation of his beer license upon specific charges; that pursuant thereto a hearing was had before the Director and the Director revoked the license “without any basis in fact or in law.”
A suit in equity cannot be used for the purpose of procuring a review of the proceedings of a board, commission or commissioner. Common law certiorari is the appropriate method of judicial review of such proceedings when there is no prescribed method. See State Beverage Department v. Willis, 32 So. (2nd) 580, and other authorities therein cited.
*292The bill is without equity, and the decree appealed is reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hotel & Rest. Comm'n of the State of Fla. v. Zucker, 116 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…eir answer. Where certiorari has been prescribed as the method for review of the proceedings and orders of an administrative board, the aggrieved party may not substitute an equity suit as a means of seeking such review. See Vocelle v. Maleszewski, 160 Fla. 291, 34 So. 2d 436. In the present equity suit the licensee did not seek a review of the proceedings before the hotel commissioner on the merits, such as could have been done appropriately by timely certiorari, but sought to enjoin enforcement of the s…1 / 2
-
Ronta, Inc. v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 153 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…edings to review such approval would be through certiorari proceedings and not through collateral attack in an independent chancery proceeding. See: State Beverage Department of Florida v. Willis, 159 Fla. 698, 32 So. 2d 580; Vocelle v. Maleszewski, 160 Fla. 291, 34 So. 2d 436; § 561.29, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Therefore, for the reasons above set forth, the final decree rendered by the chancellor is affirmed. Affirmed. KANNER, Acting C. J., and BARNS, PAUL, Associate Judge, concur.…
-
McCREARY v. Dade Cnty., 18 Fla. Supp. 172 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1961)…tel and Restaurant Commission v. Zucker (Fla. App. 3d 1960), 116 So. 2d 642, 644; O’Brien v. Campbell (Fla. App. 3d 1960), 118 So. 2d 672; and City of Miami v. Eldredge (Fla. App. 3d 1961), 126 So. 2d 169. Cf. Vocelle v. Maleszewski (Fla. Sup. Ct.), 160 Fla. 291, 34 So. 2d 436, 437, and State Beverage Department v. Willis (Fla. Sup. Ct.), 159 Fla. 693, 32 So. 2d 580. Further in Alianell v. Fossey (Fla. App. 3d 1959), 114 So. 2d 372, it was held that injunctive relief procedure could not be used to obtain an…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Bev. Dep't OF Fla. & James T. Vocelle v. Willis, 159 Fla. 698 (Fla. 1947)