WILLIAM M. FRIEDMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed an order suspending an architect's registration. The court found one charge against the architect was sufficiently proven, but the second charge was not. The court granted certiorari in part, remanding for a new suspension order based only on the proven charge.
The court held that the charges under Count One were sufficiently proven, but the charges under Count Two were not. Therefore, the suspension order was not entirely valid.
“After review of the record and briefs, we find that the charge against the petitioner as to Count One was properly and sufficiently proven.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the first charge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam M. Friedman, a registered architect, had his registration suspended for six months by the State Board of Architecture. The suspension was base…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, William M. Friedman, seeks review of an order of the State Board of Architecture, which suspended his registration as an architect for six months on two charges filed against him by the Board.
His petition for certiorari is sought under Article V, Section 5(3), Florida Constitution, F.S.A., and Section 120.31(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., because no method of review for this penalty is provided in Chapter 467, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which governs the practice of architecture in Florida.
After review of the record and briefs, we find that the charge against the petitioner as to Count One was properly and sufficiently proven. The record, however, fails to establish that the charges against the petitioner under Count Two were properly or sufficiently proven.
*8The petition for writ of certiorari is therefore granted as to the charges under Count Two and the order suspending registration of the petitioner is hereby remanded, with directions for the imposition of a new and proper suspension order in accordance with his conviction under Count One.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friedman v. State Ex rel. State Bd. of Architecture, 201 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1967)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 192 So. 2d 7.…