SONNY'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT AND PIZZERIA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the revocation of a liquor license, holding that the agency properly denied disqualification, relied on substantial evidence, rejected immaterial proposed findings, and the licensee failed to timely file exceptions.
The agency's revocation of appellant's liquor license is affirmed because the agency head properly denied disqualification, the order is supported by substantial competent evidence, the agency properly rejected immaterial proposed findings of fact, and appellant failed to timely file exceptions.
[1] An agency may reject proposed findings of fact as immaterial or irrelevant without explicitly ruling on each one if the findings are subordinate, cumulative, or unnecessa…
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSonny's Italian Restaurant and Pizzeria held a liquor license that was revoked by the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverag…
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 Proposed Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final agency order under review revoking appellant’s liquor license is affirmed upon a holding that: (1) the agency head correctly denied the motion for disqualification, Lash, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 411 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), (2) the order is supported by substantial, competent evidence, (3) the agency properly rejected proposed facts found to be subordinate, cumulative or unnecessary with the statement that such facts were immaterial or irrelevant, Fla.Admin.Code Rule 28-5.405(3); Forress-ter v. Career Service Commission, 361 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1366 (Fla.1979); accord, Agrico Chemical Co. v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied sub nom. Askew v. Agrico Chemical Co., 376 So. 2d 74 (Fla.1979), and the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the fairness or correctness of the proceedings were materially impaired by the agency’s failure to explicitly rule on each proposed finding of fact, see Parekh v. Career Service Commission, 346 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Sec. 120.68(8), Fla. Stat. (1981), and (4) any error resulting from entry of the final order on July 2, 1981, prior to receipt of appellant’s exceptions to the recommended order, is not material in light of the fact that the exceptions, dated July 6, 1981, were not filed within the requisite ten day period of section 120.57(l)(b)8, Fla.Stat. (1981), when measured from either the date the recommended order was entered (June 19), or the date submitted to the agency and parties (June 23). Sec. 120.68(8), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Humana, Inc. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 492 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…n competent substantial evidence. However, the hearing officer found it unnecessary to compare the applications and, therefore, made no findings on their merits. See Sonny’s Italian Restaurant and Pizzeria, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 414 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (appellant failed to demonstrate that the fairness or correctness of the proceedings was impaired by the agency’s failure to explicitly rule on each proposed finding of fact). HRS disagreed with the hearing officer’s conclus…
-
1431 Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 426 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…ndings would not have altered the agency’s final decision. Thus, we modify the final order to incorporate the findings and, as modified, we affirm the final order. See Sonny’s Italian Restaurant & Pizzeria, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 414 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Lash, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, 411 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). AFFIRMED. HURLEY, DELL, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur. . Footnote 4 of the recommended order stated: “In additio…
Authorities Cited
- Agrico Chem. Co. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Env't Reg. & Sarasota Cnty., 365 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Lash, Inc. v. State, 411 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Forrester v. Career Serv. Comm'n of Fla., 361 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Sanford Rissman v. Mgic Equities, Inc., 346 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)