AL'S DRUG STORE, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA BOARD OF PHARMACY, 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, First District, reviewed an order revoking a retail drug establishment permit. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Board of Pharmacy departed from the essential requirements of law in revoking the permit, despite claims of illegal search and seizure and excessive penalty.
No, the petitioner failed to clearly demonstrate that the respondent departed from the essential requirements of law in revoking the permit. The court did not explicitly address the excessiveness of the penalty beyond this general finding.
“Petitioner has failed to clearly demonstrate that in the rendition of its order here assaulted respondent has departed from the essential requirements of law in any of the particulars relied on as grounds for relief.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reason for denying relief, finding the petitioner did not meet its burden of proof.
Al's Drug Store, Inc. (petitioner) had its retail drug establishment permit revoked by the Florida Board of Pharmacy (respondent) due to violations of…
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 Illegal Search cases and more on FLexlaw
Pursuant to writ of certiorari issued in this case we review an order rendered by respondent, Florida Board of Pharmacy, revoking the retail drug establishment permit held by petitioner.
Petitioner was charged, tried and found guilty of violating several provisions of the Florida food, drug and cosmetic law.1 It was because of these violations that petitioner’s permit to operate a retail drug business was revoked. The primary thrust of petitioner’s contention is that the evidence on which its conviction is based was seized during the course of an illegal search of its premises by respondent’s agent, which evidence is both legally and factually insufficient to support the order of revocation. Petitioner additionally alleges that the penalty imposed upon it is excessively severe and should be modified.
We have carefully considered the record, the briefs and oral argument of counsel before the bar of this court. Petitioner has failed to clearly demonstrate that in the rendition of its order here assaulted respondent has departed from the essential requirements of law in any of the particulars relied on as grounds for relief.
The writ is discharged and the petition dismissed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.