JOHN P. DODSON, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, RESPONDENT
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.
John Dodson sought enforcement of this Court's prior mandate quashing a driver's license suspension decision and requested a writ of prohibition against the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The court denied the motion, explaining that the proper remedy is remand to the circuit court for a new administrative hearing that complies with legal requirements, not direct invalidation of the suspension.
The Court denied Dodson's motion. The proper remedy is remand to the circuit court, which shall remand the case to the Department for a new hearing that meets the essential requirements of the law upon either party's filing of a proper motion. Direct invalidation of the suspension by appellate order is not warranted.
[1] An appellate court, when considering a petition for writ of certiorari, may only deny the petition or grant it and quash the order under review.
[2] When an appellate court quashes a lower court's decision for failing to consider the lawfulness of an arrest, the proper remedy is to remand the case for a new hearing th…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This Court quashed the decision of the lower court because the hearing officer did not consider the lawfulness of the arrest.”
Establishes the basis for the prior quashing and the defect in the administrative hearing that must be remedied.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDodson's driver's license was suspended following a hearing before a hearing officer. In a prior proceeding, this Court quashed the lower court decisi…
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 Legality Of Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO ENFORCE THIS COURT’S MANDATE AND FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION
In a prior proceeding, this Court quashed the lower court decision that found a hearing officer did not depart from the essential requirements of the law during the petitioner’s driver’s license suspension hearing. The petitioner, John Dodson, has now filed a Motion to Enforce This Court’s Mandate and for a Writ of Prohibition. In sum, petitioner seeks an order from this Court directing the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the Department) to invalidate the petitioner’s driver’s license suspension. In this instance, the remedy sought is not warranted. This Court quashed the decision of the lower court because the hearing officer did not consider the lawfulness of the arrest. See Dodson v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, Case No. 1D12-5321 (Fla. 1st DCA June 2013). We remand this case to the circuit court whereupon by either party’s filing of a proper motion, the case shall be remanded to the Department for a new hearing that meets the essential requirements of the law. This is an action consistent with the law. See Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V. Int’l Ltd., 787 So.2d 838, 843-44 (Fla.2011) (finding that an appellate court only determines whether or not the tribunal or administrative authority’s order or judgment has departed from the essential requirements of the law); see also Clay Cnty. v. Kendale Land Dev., Inc., 969 So.2d 1177, 1180-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (finding that when the appellate court is considering a petition for writ of certiorari, it has only two options — deny or grant the petition, and quash the order at which the petition is directed).
DENIED.
PADOVANO, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Nils Futch, 142 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…hway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 645 So. 2d 113, 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (“When an evi-dentiary error is made in an administrative hearing, the remedy is to remand for further proceedings.”); see also Dodson v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 120 So. 3d 69, 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“We remand this case to the circuit court whereupon by either party’s filing of a proper motion, the case shall be remanded to the Department for a new hearing that meets the essential requirements of the law.”); Dep’t of Hi…
-
Glor v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 120 So. 3d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
Authorities Cited
- Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V. Int'l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2001)
- Clay Cnty. v. Kendale Land Dev., Inc., 969 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)