DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, APPELLANT,
v.
E.L. ASHBURY, D/B/A EDDIE'S DRIVE INN, 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 Fourth District reversed an injunction against the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, holding that as-applied constitutional challenges to administrative action must be raised on appeal after final agency action, not in circuit court during the administrative process, and that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts for injunctive relief.
As-applied constitutional challenges to administrative statutes must be raised on appeal to the district court following final administrative action, not in circuit court during the administrative process, and a complaint seeking injunctive relief must contain adequate allegations to support such relief.
[1] As-applied constitutional challenges to administrative action must be raised on appeal to the district court following final agency action, not in circuit court during th…
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 intelligenceThe Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco took adverse administrative action against Ashbury, who operated Eddie's Drive Inn, and Ashbury filed …
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 Injunctive Relief Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
Appealed is a non-final order enjoining appellant, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, from enforcing any adverse administrative decision against appellee, Ashbury, pending review by the circuit court of the constitutional issues raised by a first amended complaint. We reverse on two grounds. First, the allegations and prayer of the complaint are directed to the constitutionality “as applied” of the statute in question rather than to its facial constitutionality. Such an inquiry is properly directed to the district court of appeal following final administrative action, not to the circuit court midstream of the administrative process. Key Haven v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla.1982); Solimena v. State Department of Business Regulation, 402 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Rice v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 386 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Second, the complaint is woefully inadequate to support injunctive relief. The necessary allegations are discussed in such cases as Department of Business Regulation v. Provende, Inc., 399 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and Contemporary Interiors v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
REVERSED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- KEY Haven Associated Enters., Inc. v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1982)
- Rice v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 386 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Solimena v. State, 402 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Dep't OF Bus. Reg. v. Provende, Inc., 399 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Wilds v. Wilds, 399 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)