IRA W. EUBANKS, JR., D/B/A EUBANKS TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL, PETITIONER,
v.
PEST CONTROL COMMISSION OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 1966-11-29
No. I-149
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SACK, JJ., concur.
192 So. 2d 333 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1966) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The court held that the petitioner's contentions lacked support in the record and relevant authorities.


Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the Pest Control Act, leading to revocation of his certificates and probation. He sought review, arguing insu…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was duly charged and found guilty of violating certain sections of the Pest Control Act, F.S. Chapter 482, F.S.A. Consequent upon this finding the Pest Control Certificate and Thermal Aerosol Certificate theretofore issued to petitioner were revoked, and he was placed on probation for a period of two years with respect to his pest control certificate so that he might continue to operate-his business under that certificate subject to the conditions of probation.

Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of the order of revocation contending that the findings of respondent are not supported by competent and substantial evidence; that the order of revocation constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and a violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process in that in the proceedings which culminated in the order here assaulted respondent acted in the combined capacity of grand jury, prosecutor, judge, and trial jury. Petitioner also contends that his constitutional rights were further impinged by the assertion that the severity of the penalty imposed upon him is unwarranted both by the nature of the offense and the extent of the violation of which he was found guilty, evidencing such bias and prejudice on the part of respondent as to constitute an abuse of discretion.

We have carefully examined the record of the proceedings which resulted in rendition of the order here reviewed, and considered the contentions of petitioner and the authorities cited in support thereof. After such consideration we have concluded that petitioner’s position on all points raised by him lacks support in the record, and is not sustained by the authorities on which he relies. Certiorari is accordingly denied.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SACK, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw