CHARLES HUNTER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA BOARD OF PHARMACY, 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.
Charles Hunter, a licensed pharmacist, was disciplined by the Florida Board of Pharmacy for dispensing drugs without prescriptions and misbranding drugs in violation of state food, drug, and cosmetic law. Hunter challenged the Board's jurisdiction to hear violations of that law, but the court affirmed the discipline because Hunter judicially admitted the violations, relieving the Board of its burden to prove guilt.
The court did not decide whether the Board had jurisdiction to try violations of the food, drug and cosmetic law because Hunter's judicial admission of the alleged violations established those facts beyond the need for proof, entitling the Board to take disciplinary action under its statutory authority.
“A material fact which is judicially admitted is established beyond the need for proof.”
Establishes the legal principle that judicial admissions relieve an administrative body of its burden to prove alleged violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Board of Pharmacy issued a complaint against Hunter, a licensed pharmacist, charging him with dispensing certain drugs in violation of 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
On May 14, 1963, the Florida Board of Pharmacy, created and operating under chapter 465, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., issued a complaint against the appellant, a licensed pharmacist, charging him with dispensing certain drugs in violation of requirements of the Florida food, drug and cosmetic law, chapter 500, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. He pleaded guilty thereto. An order was entered by *525the Board adjudging him guilty of dispensing drugs without prescription contrary to § 500.15(11) (a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and in misbranding drugs in violation of § 500.04 (1). The Board’s order thereupon suspended appellant’s license to practice pharmacy for one year. The circuit court denied certiorari, and the pharmacist appealed.
The two charges involved here (sale of drugs without prescription, and misbrand-ing) related to requirements of the Florida food, drug and cosmetic law, the administration and enforcement of which was placed in the Department of Agriculture by § 500.44(1) and (2). Those alleged violations of that law were made misdemeanors by § 500.24, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
The appellant argues that the Pharmacy Board did not have power or jurisdiction to try and determine violations of requirements of the food, drug and cosmetic law. Compare Stadnik v. Shell’s City, Inc., Fla.1962, 140 So.2d 871. The question which that argument presents need not be decided in this case, because in response to the complaint against him by the Pharmacy Board the appellant judicially admitted the alleged violations of requirements of chapter 500, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Such admissions relieved the Board of the need to prove his guilt thereof. A material fact which is judicially admitted is established beyond the need for proof. Thus under chapter 465, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the Pharmacy Board was entitled to take the action it did against the defendant for his judicially admitted violations of requirements of the Florida food, drug and cosmetic law. See Hill v. Federal Trade Commission, 5 Cir. 1941, 124 F.2d 104, 106; Thornburg v. United States, 10 Cir. 1947, 164 F.2d 37, 39; Moon v. State, 85 Ga.App. 212, 68 S.E.2d 617; Carter v. State, 90 Ga.App. 61, 81 S.E.2d 868; 20 Am.Jur., Evidence § 557; 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 381, pp. 920-921; 9 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2588, 2590 (3d. ed.).
In the circumstances presented the circuit judge was eminently correct in denying certiorari and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stadnik v. Shell's City, Inc., 140 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1962)
- Hill v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 124 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1941)
- Thornburg v. United States, 164 F.2d 37 (10th Cir. 1947)