GOLDSTEIN
v.
SWEENY
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 dismissing the bill for laches was error because the delay did not cause injury or inconvenience.
[1] Laches is not available as a defense to a declaratory judgment action when the plaintiff has diligently pursued his claim and no party has been injured or inconvenienced…
[2] An applicant for a professional license is entitled to have his rights adjudicated under the law existing at the time of his initial application, not under subsequently e…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Whatever delay there was is not shown to have injured any one, nor was any one inconvenienced or embarrassed by it.”
Court's analysis of whether laches applied to the declaratory judgment action
Appellant applied for a reciprocal CPA Certificate, which was repeatedly rejected. He filed a bill for declaratory decree after the final rejection, a…
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 Doctrine Of Laches cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed his bill for declaratory decree, praying that his rights be determined and that appellees be required to grant him a reciprocal C.P.A. Certificate as provided by Section 473.19, F.S.A. The bill of complaint was dismissed for laches and the complainant appealed.
It was error to dismiss the bill for laches. The record shows that appellant filed his application for reciprocal certificate May 2, 1946, and that it was rejected August 27, the same year. Shortly thereafter, the application was renewed and was again rejected January 15, 1947. The application was again renewed September 20, 1947. The applicant appeared before appellees in person April 23, 1948, and urged that his application be granted. Months later it was again rejected and the bill in this case was filed July 22, 1948. Whatever delay there was is not shown to have injured any one, nor was any one inconvenienced or embarrassed by it. *Page 368 Jumper Creek Drainage District v. State, 155 Fla. 669, 21 So. 2d 459.
The legislature of 1947 enacted Chapter 24164, amending Section 473.19, Florida Statutes of 1941, F.S.A., exacting a two year residence and other requirements of the applicant for reciprocal C.P.A. Certificate, but we think from the facts shown here, appellant made the proper showing and was entitled to have his rights adjudicated under the law as it existed when he first applied. Other questions raised are foreclosed in favor of appellant by Atwood et al. v. Gelbond, Fla., 40 So. 2d 458; decided April 22, 1949, rehearing denied May 13.
Reversed.
ADAMS, C.J., and CHAPMAN, SEBRING, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. THOMAS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henry Lavernia, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 616 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…e act. Otherwise, said the court, the administrative body would be issuing a permit contrary to existing legislation. The cases relied upon by Lavernia either are not applicable or apply valid exceptions to the general rule. In Goldstein v. Sweeny, 42 So. 2d 367 (Fla.1949), the Board repeatedly denied Goldstein’s application for a reciprocal CPA certificate. Then the law changed. Under those circumstances, the court ruled that the applicant was entitled to have his rights adjudicated under the laws that exi…
-
State ex rel. Shein v. Attwood, 64 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1953)…Board. In 1949 we held, Attwood v. Gelbond, Fla., 40 So. 2d 458, that the Board of Pharmacy had .no authority to deny a reciprocal certificate under the circumstances set forth in relator’s original application and later, Goldstein v. Sweeny, Fla., 42 So. 2d 367, wc held that even though the provision for reciprocal certificates was later repealed — as was done by Chapter 25238, Acts of 1949— an applicant was entitled to have his rights adjudicated under the law as it existed when he first applied. Then, in…1 / 2
-
Backus v. Howard W. Backus Towing, Inc., 391 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…xist appears to suggest that lach-es should not attach in declaratory actions in those instances where there has been no showing of injury as a result of the delay. See Wiggins v. Lykes Bros., Inc., 97 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1957); and Goldstein v. Sweeny, 42 So. 2d 367 (Fla.1949); and cf. Board of Public Instruction v. Little River Valley Drainage District, 119 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in dismissing, with prejudice, the corporate counterdefendant solely on the b…
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
- Jumper Creek Drainage Dist. v. State, 155 Fla. 669 (Fla. 1945)