REGINALD D. LUCAS, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF REAL ESTATE, ALINCO ASSOCIATES, INC., ALFRED C. COURIC, JR., AND CAROL L. ASTIN, APPELLEES
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 court held that the final order was not supported by competent substantial evidence and the Commission erred in rejecting the hearing officer's conclusions.
Appellant attacked a final order of the appellee which publicly reprimanded him. The appellee did not appear or file a brief. The final order was not …
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
The appellant attacks a final order of the appellee which publicly reprimanded him. Unfortunately, the appellee has neither appeared before this Court nor filed a brief in support of its final order. We initially note that appellee’s final order was not rendered timely. However the consequences of such tardiness will not be visited upon the appellee unless the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action taken are impaired. G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage, 362 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), appeal dismissed, 372 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1979). Under the circumstances of this case it can hardly be said that the twenty-two day delay in rendering the final order caused any impairment.
The determinative question, therefore, is whether the final order is supported by competent substantial evidence. Davis v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 263 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972). After careful consideration of the record and appellant’s brief, we hold that the Commission’s final order is not supported by substantial competent evidence and the Commission erred in rejecting the hearing officer’s conclusions.
REVERSED.
GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- G & B OF Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, 362 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Barwick v. Barwick, 263 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)