JULIO DEJORIS, TRADING AS CABARET CLUB, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA AND DIRECTOR OF STATE BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed a license revocation order against a bar owner, affirming the Director's authority to revoke the license on most charges but quashing findings on two charges that had been formally abandoned by the prosecution during the hearing.
The court held that the Director did not violate procedural due process in refusing the postponement, as the petitioner received adequate notice, was represented by counsel, and was given time to submit additional evidence. The evidence supporting revocation was competent, substantial, and overwhelming. However, the Director erred in finding the petitioner guilty on charges 17 and 18, which had been formally stricken and abandoned by the prosecution.
“Examining the progress of the cause as outlined above, we find no departure from the essential requirements of law in the refusal of the postponement sought by petitioner.”
Establishes that the denial of the postponement motion did not constitute a procedural due process violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulio DeJoris, trading as the Cabaret Club, received adequate notice of charges related to his alcoholic beverage license and a scheduled hearing befo…
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 Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner, Julio Dejoris, trading as the Cabaret Club, presented to this Court a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order revoking his alcoholic beverage license after a hearing before the Director, State Beverage Department.1 The grounds relied upon urge (1) that by denying petitioner’s motion to postpone the hearing, the Director failed to give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and (2) the absence of competent, substantial evidence to support the finding.
The record reveals that (1) the petitioner had adequate notice of the charges against him and of the time set for the hearing; (2) he was represented by competent counsel and (3) after hearing, petitioner was granted additional time to permit the filing of depositions of former employees residing out of town. The petitioner did file certain affidavits which were considered by the Director. Examining the progress of the cause as outlined above, we find no departure from the essential requirements of law in the refusal of the postponement sought by petitioner.
The evidence was not only competent and substantial but overwhelming. There is no doubt but that the Director properly revoked petitioner’s license. However, even though charges 17 and 18 were stricken at the hearing, the Director found petitioner guilty on all charges. It appears that these charges were abandoned by the prosecution because they were little more than restatements of other charges in another form to meet the exigencies of proof. Under this record we do not think the error calls for a quashal of the entire order of revocation, but only the findings on charges 17 and 18.
*564For the reasons above expressed, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the order of the State Beverage Department is affirmed in part and quashed in part.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. State Bev. Dep't of Fla. & Dir. of State Bev. Dep't of Fla., 194 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…ar type on the premises. There was none of the flagrantly culpable conduct and chronic violations present in Pauline v. Lee, supra, or in Torch Club, Inc. v. Keating, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 746, or in DeJoris v. State Beverage Dept., Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 562, or in Life Bar & Package Store, Inc. v. State Beverage Dept., Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 463. The outright revocation of a beverage license is a most serious and drastic penalty, even in a flagrant case; it is comparable to the extreme penalty in a…
-
DeJORIS v. State Bev. Dep't of Fla., 150 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1963)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 145 So. 2d 562.…