EMMY PANKAU, 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.
Emmy Pankau sought certiorari review of a circuit court order denying her motion for clarification regarding her suspended driver's license. The appellate court granted the petition, holding that when a driver's license suspension period expires during judicial review, the circuit court should quash the administrative order without remanding for further proceedings, as the issue becomes moot.
The court held that under McLaughlin and Forth, when a driver's license suspension period expires while a matter is under judicial review and the Department seeks further formal administrative hearings, the circuit court should quash the administrative order without remanding. No further proceedings are necessary because the issue becomes moot once the suspension period expires.
[1] When a driver's license suspension period expires during appellate review, and the Department seeks further formal administrative hearings, the circuit court should quash…
[2] A driver's license suspension issue becomes moot when the suspension period expires during appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“when the Department administratively suspends a driver's license, and the suspension period expires while a matter is under review but the department seeks further formal administrative hearings, the circuit court should quash the administrative order, rather than quash and remand for further proceedings.”
Establishes the primary holding regarding the proper procedure when a suspension expires during judicial review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePankau's driver's license was suspended by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. She previously obtained certiorari relief quashing the…
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 Administrative License Suspension cases and more on FLexlaw
Emmy Pankau seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order denying her motion for clarification. We have jurisdiction, see Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(2)(B), and grant the petition.
In Pankau v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 91 So.3d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), cause dismissed, 100 So.3d 1149 (Fla.2012), we quashed a circuit court order that denied Ms. Pankau certio-rari relief from an administrative decision upholding the suspension of her driver’s license. See §§ 322.2615(1), (6), (14), .31, Fla. Stat. (2010). We directed the circuit court to consider whether an adequate mechanism existed for Ms. Pankau to challenge the lawfulness of the underlying traffic stop. Pankau, 91 So.3d at 923-24. The circuit court then reconsidered Ms. *1032Pankau’s certiorari petition, quashed the Department’s final order upholding Ms. Pankau’s license suspension, and remanded the cause to the Department for further proceedings.
In light of our holding in McLaughlin v. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 128 So.3d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), and because Ms. Pankau’s license suspension period expired during the review period, Ms. Pankau moved for clarification. The circuit court denied her motion and she petitioned this court for second-tier certiorari review to determine whether the circuit court afforded due process and applied the correct law. See Forth v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, — So.3d —, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Under McLaughlin, 128 So.3d at 815, and Forth, — So.3d -, at *1, we held that when the Department administratively suspends a driver’s license, and the suspension period expires while a matter is under review but the department seeks further formal administrative hearings, the circuit court should quash the administrative order, rather than quash and remand for further proceedings. “No further proceedings are necessary on remand because the issue of the validity of the suspension of [the] driver’s license is moot.” McLaughlin, 128 So.3d at 815. The circuit court in this case failed to apply the correct law when it remanded the moot issue to the administrative tribunal. Forth, — So.3d -, at *1.
Petition granted; order quashed to the extent that it remanded the case.
ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cornelio v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…rtiorari petition, the circuit court failed to apply the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception to mootness and denied Mr. Cornelio the due process to which he was entitled. See, e.g., Pankau v. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 147 So. 3d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (granting second-tier certiorari where the license suspension had expired and the circuit court had quashed the administrative order because the circuit court "failed to apply the correct law when it remanded the moot issue…
Authorities Cited
- McLAUGHLIN v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 128 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Emmy Pankau v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 91 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)