DWIGHT ELLINWOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN, 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 court affirmed the Board's denial of an architectural license by endorsement, holding that the "substantially equivalent" requirement in section 481.213(3)(b) effectively incorporates the five-year education requirement even though it is not explicitly stated in that subsection.
The Board's interpretation that the "substantially equivalent" requirement in section 481.213(3)(b) effectively incorporates a five-year formal education requirement is not erroneous.
[1] A licensing board's interpretation that a "substantially equivalent" requirement in a professional licensing statute effectively incorporates an explicit education requir…
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 intelligenceAppellant sought a Florida architectural license by endorsement under section 481.213(3)(b). The Board initially denied his application, and on remand…
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 Licensure By Endorsement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks a Florida architectural license by endorsement under section 481.213(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1999). Previously, after the Board denied his application, appellant sought review in this court. See Ellinwood, v. Bd. of Architecture & Interior Design, 835 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
This court reversed the Board’s denial and remanded the case for further proceedings on the basis that only subsection (3)(c) of the statute has an explicit requirement that an architect licensed out of state demonstrate that he or she has completed a five-year architecture education. Id. at 1270.
On remand, appellant argued that he is entitled to li-censure under subsection (3)(b), which generally requires demonstration that an applicant has been licensed in another state that has a “substantially equivalent” requirement to the requirement in effect in Florida at that time. The Board disagreed with this argument, reasoning that even though the five-year education requirement of subsection (3)(c) did not directly apply to subsection (3)(b), the substantially equivalent requirement operated in such a way to virtually engraft a five-year formal education requirement onto subsection (3)(b).
We find no fault with the Board’s interpretation of the statute. See Cases v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 651 So. 2d 772, 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); see also, e.g., Ellinwood, 835 So. 2d at 1270.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Board’s denial of appellant’s application for licensure by endorsement under section 481.213(3)(b).
ERVIN, BARFIELD, and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ellinwood v. Bd. of Architecture & Interior Design, 835 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Cases v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 651 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)