COY MITCHELL, PETITIONER,
v.
RUPERT H. GILLESPIE ET AL., AS AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, 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 Supreme Court discharged a writ of certiorari, adopting the reasoning of the District Court of Appeal. The case involved a conflict with a prior Supreme Court decision, which the court modified to align with the District Court's ruling.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the District Court of Appeal's decision was correct and adopted its reasoning. The court also modified its prior ruling in Peters v. Brown to conform to the District Court's decision.
“Due to an apparent conflict between the case now under consideration and Peters v. Brown, Fla., SS So. 2d 334, the writ issued.”
Explains the reason for the Supreme Court's review of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case history, background, facts, and legal questions were previously detailed in the District Court of Appeal's opinion. The Supreme Court reviewe…
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 Conflict Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
The history, background, facts and questions of law are set forth in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Mitchell v. Gillespie, 164 So.2d 867, *820and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat them here. Due to an apparent conflict between the case now under consideration and Peters v. Brown, Fla., SS So.2d 334, the writ issued. Argument having been heard and the court having examined the record, we are of the view that the law was clearly stated and the case properly disposed of by the District Court and we adopt that decision as our view. It is noteworthy, however, that in the opinion of the District Court reference was made to the case of Florida Board of Pharmacy v. Hall, District Court of Appeal, Second District, 157 So.2d 824, which decision is now before us on certiorari granted and not yet finally disposed of. Insofar as the decision of the District Court may be in conflict with the case of Peters v. Brown, supra, the rule of decision in the latter case is modified to conform to the rule set forth by the District Court in Mitchell v. Gillespie, 164 So.2d 867.
For the reasons stated, the writ of cer-tiorari heretofore issued in this cause is discharged.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Bd. OF Pharmacy v. Levin, 190 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1966)…in professions, such procedures have been found to be necessary and appropriate to properly administer the regulatory laws in the interest of the health and welfare of the general public. See Mitchell v. Gillespie, Fla.App., 164 So. 2d 867, affirmed 172 So. 2d 819; Florida Board of Pharmacy v. Hall, Fla.App., 157 So. 2d 824; and Carter v. State, Fla., 155 So. 2d 787. It is apparent that because of the particular issues in the hearing, the members of the Board of Pharmacy, who are all pharmacists (see F.S. Se…
-
Hall v. Fla. Bd. OF Pharmacy, 177 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1965)…on of the Board of • Pharmacy for that reason. The District' Court of Appeal properly ruled that the-defense of entrapment was not effective. That part of the decision is approved by this court under the authority of Mitchell v. Gillespie, Fla.1965, 172 So. 2d 819, and Mitchell v. Gillespie, District Court of Appeal, First District, 164 So. 2d 867. The matter, however, does not end here. The appellee Hall advanced other points in support of the Circuit Court judgment which the District Court refused to consi…1 / 2
-
Mack v. Pepper, 192 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…fessions, such procedures have been found to be necessary and appropriate to properly administer the regulatory laws in the interest of the health and welfare of the general public. See Mitchell v. Gillespie, Fla.App., 164 So. 2d 867, affirmed Fla., 172 So. 2d 819; Florida Board of Pharmacy v. Hall, Fla.App., 157 So. 2d 824; and Carter v. State, Fla., 155 So. 2d 787. “It is apparent that because of the particular issues in the hearing, the members of the Board of Pharmacy, who are all pharmacists (see Sec. 4…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Bd. OF Pharmacy v. Hall, 157 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Coy Mitchell v. Rupert H. Gillespie, 164 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)