HERMAN W. BEVIS ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., PETITIONERS,
v.
MARK W. EASTLAND ET AL., 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 court adopts the District Court of Appeal's decision affirming the denial of reciprocal certificates.
Petitioners sought reciprocal certificates as accountants, but the State Board of Accountancy denied their applications for various reasons. The Distr…
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 Question Of Great Public Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
We here review by certiorari a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, affirming a ruling by the State Board of Accountancy denying reciprocal certificates to certain persons for various reasons. See Bevis v. Eastland (DCA 1) 186 So.2d 818.
The petition for certiorari was buttressed by a certificate of the District Court that the case passes upon a question of great public interest, and we therefore have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 4(2), Constitution of Florida, F.S.A.
The factual background, questions pre--sented and final decision appear in the: opinion of the District Court. We have: considered their decision in the light of the: decision of this court, this day filed, in Mercer v. Hemmings, 194 So.2d 579 and finding no error in the decision of the District Court, their opinion is adopted as the view of this court and the writ of certiorari heretofore issued is discharged.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW, CALDWELL, ERVIN and SE-BRING (Retired), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Deltona Corp. v. Bailey, 336 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1976)…e amended complaint was dismissed with further leave to amend; absent such amendment, dismissal was to be with prejudice. The lower court noted that a cause of action for denial of equal protection could be alleged pursuant to Dade County v. Salter, 194 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1957), and Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. County of Dade, 275 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1973), but held that Deltona had failed to frame its pleadings in conformity with those cases. Count III of the amended complaint was dismissed in the same manner as…1 / 2
-
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cnty. OF Dade, 275 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1973)…City of Tampa v. Colgan, (1935) 121 Fla. 218, 163 So. 577; Burns v. Butscher, Fla. 1966, 187 So. 2d 594; Dickinson v. Geraci, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 368; Camp Phosphate Co. v. Allen, (1919) 77 Fla. 341, 81 So. 503; Dade County v. Salter, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 587. Petitioner sought relief from the 1967 assessment of its tangible personal property in Dade County, alleging that its property was assesesd at a substantially higher percentage of market value than that which the tax assessor had systematically as…1 / 2
-
Murray Spooner v. Reubin O'D. Askew, 345 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1976)…e Board and the Assessor were made defendants in the suit. . Burns v. Butscher, 187 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1966); Walter v. Schuler, 176 So. 2d 81 (Fla.1965). . Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Dade County, 275 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1973); Dade County v. Salter, 194 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1966). We recently explained the limitations of these cases in Deltona Corp. v. Bailey, 336 So. 2d 1163, 1167-1168 (Fla.1976). . Art. VIII, § 1(d), Fla.Const. (1974). . Burns v. Butscher, 187 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla.1966). . See District School…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mercer v. Hemmings, 194 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1966)
- Bevis v. Eastland, 186 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)