DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, APPELLANT,
v.
N. K., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco suspended N. K., Inc.'s liquor license without a prior hearing based on narcotics violations on the premises. The licensee obtained an injunction from Circuit Court staying the suspension. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction because the licensee had an adequate administrative remedy available under state statute.
The Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction because the licensee had an adequate administrative remedy available under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, which provides for immediate review in the District Court of Appeal. The emergency suspension without a prior hearing does not violate constitutional due process requirements, and the findings in the suspension order sufficiently articulate the reasons for the emergency action.
[1] A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction staying an agency's emergency order suspending a liquor license when an adequate administrative remedy, such as…
[2] The availability of immediate appellate review under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, constitutes an adequate administrative remedy precluding circuit court injunctive r…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“injunctive remedy [in the Circuit Court] ... is applicable only in those extraordinary cases where a party has no other adequate administrative remedy to cure egregious agency errors or where a party's constitutional rights are endangered.”
Establishes the narrow standard for when Circuit Courts may enjoin agency action, requiring either no adequate administrative remedy or endangered constitutional rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issued an emergency order suspending the liquor license of N. K., Inc. without a prior hearing due to …
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 Constitutional Due Process cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco entered an emergency order, without a prior hearing, suspending the liquor license of N. K., Inc. because of numerous alleged narcotics violations which occurred on the licensed premises. The following day the licensee sought and obtained an injunction from the Dade County Circuit Court staying the Division’s action. The Division brings this appeal asserting the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction. We agree and reverse the trial court’s order issuing the injunction.
In Metropolitan Dade County v. Department of Commerce, 365 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), we held “injunctive remedy [in the Circuit Court] ... is applicable only in those extraordinary cases where a party has no other adequate administrative remedy to cure egregious agency errors or where a party’s constitutional rights are endangered.” (emphasis supplied). The licensee in the present case clearly had another remedy.
Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (1979), provides for immediate review in the appropriate District Court of Appeal where the agency suspends or revokes a license. See Aurora Enterprises, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 395 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
As we noted in Aurora Enterprises, Section 120.68(3) specifically provides for the remedy sought by the licensee here. In seeking the injunction in Circuit Court, the licensee claimed1 that constitutional due process considerations require a pre-suspension hearing. The claim is without merit. Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 99 S.Ct. 2642, 61 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979); Aurora Enterprises, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, supra. The licensee’s additional claim that the findings recited in the order of suspension do not sufficiently articulate the reasons nor justify the emergency suspension is also without merit.
We rejected a similar claim in Aurora Enterprises, a case which involved virtually identical findings to those recited in the present suspension order. Since it is clear the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction, we reverse the order enjoining the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.
Reversed.
. Our abbreviated discussion of the substance of the licensee’s claim is solely to show that at the time the injunction under consideration issued, the licensee’s constitutional rights were not endangered. We note that in the event a post-suspension hearing is not held, the licensee has an entirely different constitutional claim, see Aurora Enterprises, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, supra, which the Circuit Court may indeed have jurisdiction to hear.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Falls Chase Special Taxing Dist., 424 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ds, but little direct power in fact, the legislature has deprived the executive branch of clear effective authority to take action resolving the dispute by means of the Administrative Procedure Act”) Department of Business Regulation v. N.K., Inc., 399 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“The licensee [who won a circuit court injunction] ... clearly had another remedy. Section 120.68 ... provides for immediate review in the appropriate District Court of Appeal ....”) Key Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Boa…
-
Dep't OF Bus. Reg. v. Palace BAR & Lounge, Inc., 400 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. The temporary injunction here under review be and the same is hereby reversed on the authority of Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco v. N.K. Inc., 399 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Provende, Inc., 399 So. 2d 1038 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Reversed.…
-
Dep't OF Bus. Reg. v. M. S. B. Lounges, Inc., 399 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…BASKIN, Judge. Reversed upon the authority of Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco v. N.K. Inc., 399 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Provende, Inc., 399 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1979)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Dep't OF Commerce, 365 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Aurora Enters., Inc. v. State, 395 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)