MARTIN M. AMMERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Ammerman appeals the circuit court's denial of a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash the Florida Board of Pharmacy's license revocation order. The court affirmed, holding that the Board's findings were supported by substantial competent evidence and that Ammerman's other contentions lacked merit.
The circuit court properly denied the writ of certiorari. The Board's findings were supported by substantial competent evidence, and Ammerman's other contentions on appeal lacked merit. The critical factor is whether the evidence itself supports the Board's action, not the adjectives used to characterize it.
“The extent of our review on this appeal is to decide whether, upon the points properly raised, the circuit court applied the applicable law and acted in accordance with established procedure.”
Establishes the standard of review for certiorari appeals in administrative licensing cases.
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 revoked Ammerman's pharmacy license based on alleged violations. Ammerman sought a writ of certiorari in circuit court t…
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 Law Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order of the circuit court denying a petition for writ of certiorari. The petition to the circuit court sought to quash an order of the Florida Board of Pharmacy, revoking petitioner’s license to practice pharmacy.
The jurisdiction of this court to entertain an appeal in this type of action as well as the extent of our review is set forth in Morris v. Hialeah,1 wherein the court stated:
“The extent of our review on this appeal is to decide whether, upon the points properly raised, the circuit court applied the applicable law and acted in accordance with established procedure.” 2
Appellant’s basic contentions in this appeal are that:
(1) He was denied due process in that the board hearing was held on a Sunday;
(2) The State Board’s finding that the charges were supported by “sufficient competent evidence” is legally insufficient as a basis for its action;
(3) The findings of the State Pharmacy Board are not supported by “substantial competent evidence”, and
(4) His acquittal by the criminal court of record for the same alleged violation precluded board action.
After having carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the arguments of counsel we find that the circuit court correctly dismissed the petition and denied the writ.
We now turn to a discussion of appellant’s contention two and three as indicated above. The important factor in determining whether or not evidence adduced at a board hearing is legally sufficient to warrant a board’s findings and action is not the adjectives used by a board in characterizing said evidence but is rather the evidence itself. Throughout the years the courts have used many different adjectives in describing the quantum and nature of evidence required to sustain board action.3
In DeGroot v. Sheffield,4 the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition that substantial competent evidence is required to sustain a board’s findings. The court then went on to define the words substantial and competent:
“Substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred. We have stated it to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Becker v. Merrill, 155 Fla. 379, 20 So.2d 912; Laney v. Board of Public Instruction, 153 Fla. 728, 15 So.2d 748. * * * We are of a view, however, that the evidence relied upon to sustain the ultimate finding should be sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached. To this extent the ‘substantial’ evidence should also be ‘competent’.” 5
Applying the above rationale to the case sub judice we find the chancellor was eminently correct in his determination of the issues raised concerning the evidence. We have considered appellant’s *427other points on appeal and find them to he without merit.
Reversible error not having been made to appear, the order appealed is hereby, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Westwood Lake, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Water & Sewer Bd., 203 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…d Lake, Inc. has taken this appeal. Under these circumstances, we are concerned only as to whether the Circuit Court applied the applicable law and acted in accordance with established procedure. Ammerman v. Florida Board of Pharmacy, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 425. Unfortunately, the appellant and the appellee have not agreed, in their briefs, on the appropriate and determinative points for consideration by this court, inasmuch as the appellant submits four points for review and the appel-lee contends that th…
-
City OF OPA Locka v. Carlile, 323 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ng evidence, but rather to review whether such determinations are supported by substantial competent evidence. Southern Gulf Util. v. Metropolitan Dade Co. W. S. Bd., Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 481; Ammerman v. Florida Board of Pharmacy, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 425; Florida State Board of Dental Exam. v. Feinglass, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 686; 1 Fla.Jur., Administrative Law, §§ 191-194, and cases cited therein. Here the circuit court, acting as the reviewing court on petition for certiorari from the Personnel…
-
John v. McGUARAN, 175 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…to prove the specifications of the charges, nor do we find any reversible error to have been committed by the circuit court. Accordingly, the order appealed is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. . Ammerman v. The Florida Board of Pharmacy, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 425 (Not yet reported, opinion filed April 13, 1965); Morris v. City of Hialeah, Fla.App.1962, 140 So. 2d 615. . Ibid. . City of Miami v. Babey, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 230. . De Groot v. Sheffield, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 912.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)
- Laney v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction FOR THE Cnty. OF Orange, 153 Fla. 728 (Fla. 1943)
- Morris v. City OF Hialeah, 140 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Becker v. Merrell, 155 Fla. 379 (Fla. 1944)