RALPH W. ALDERMAN, D/B/A RALPH ALDERMAN FRUIT COMPANY, A CITRUS FRUIT DEALER UNDER CHAPTER 601 F.S., PETITIONER,
v.
DOYLE CONNER, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Ralph Alderman, a citrus fruit dealer, sought review of an order revoking his fruit dealer's license. He filed petitions for certiorari in both the Orange County Circuit Court (under Fla. Stat. § 601.68, the Citrus Code) and the District Court of Appeal (under Fla. Stat. § 120.31), seeking to determine the proper forum for judicial review of the Commissioner of Agriculture's administrative order.
The District Court abated proceedings before it, pending a determination by the Orange County Circuit Court on the merits of its jurisdiction question, to be revived only if the circuit court is ultimately found to lack jurisdiction.
“any administrative order of the commissioner issued under §§ 601.66 — 601.68, or 601.70 shall be deemed to have been issued in the county wherein the licensee has his main office * * * and the circuit court of such county shall be the court to review such order.”
Establishes the Citrus Code's specific jurisdictional provision directing circuit court review in the county of the licensee's main office
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlderman, a citrus fruit dealer operating under Florida law, had his fruit dealer's license No. 93 revoked by the Commissioner of Agriculture. He file…
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 Certiorari Review Of Administrative Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner for certiorari, Ralph W. Alderman, seeks review of an order issued by the respondent, Doyle Conner, as Commissioner of Agriculture, revoking his fruit dealer’s license No. 93. The petition states that heretofore the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the circuit court of Orange County seeking review of the same order of which review is sought here and that the respondent to that petition moved to quash the proceedings in the circuit court on the grounds of its want of jurisdiction; that the circuit judge ruled that court had jurisdiction and proceeded with the hearing on the merits of the petition for certiorari; but at the time of the filing of the petition here no decision had been rendered in the circuit court.
The petition for certiorari in the circuit court was based on F.S. Section 601.68, F. S.A., which prescribes that “any administrative order of the commissioner issued under §§ 601.66 — 601.68, or 601.70 shall be deemed to have been issued in the county wherein the licensee has his main office * * * and the circuit court of such county shall be the court to review such order.” The foregoing section is a part of the Florida Citrus Code.
The petition for certiorari filed here is based on F.S. Section 120.31, F.S.A. which prescribes generally that the review of the acts of administrative agencies, except when reviewable by the Supreme Court, shall be reviewable in the District Court of Appeal which includes the county wherein the hearing was conducted; and F.S. Section 120.321, F.S.A. provides that, “nothing contained in section 120.041 (3) and (4) shall affect or repeal the provisions of chapter 601.”
The petition here was filed in the abundance of precaution to insure petitioner that he would not be cut-off a hearing for the failure to seek relief in the proper forum.
In consideration of the premises, it is ordered that proceedings herein stand abated, to be revived only in the event that it is ultimately determined on review that the circuit court of Orange County is without jurisdiction.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arvida Corp. v. The City OF Sarasota, 213 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…also that § 120.31 has been construed to mean that certiorari to the district court is to be the method of review where no other is specifically provided by statute. Alderman v. Conner, Fla.App.1967, 205 So. 2d 25; Alderman v. Conner, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 819; Maloy, Florida Appellate Practice and Procedure § 37.07 (1966). Where, as in the present case, a specific mode of review is provided by statute, it, rather than § 120.31, must apply. The rationale of the Alderman case seems eminently applicable to…
-
Alderman v. Doyle E. Conner, 205 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…a specific method and a specific court are provided for by the statute pertaining to the board or agency, that statute applies rather than section 120.31.” A footnote from the above paragraph refers to the case of Alderman v. Conner (Fla.App.1963), 152 So. 2d 819, which is a' decision of this court. We held therein, in an opinion by retired Justice Barns, that the petition for writ of certiorari filed by fruit dealer to review the order of the Commissioner of Agriculture revoking the fruit dealer’s license,…