STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. DR. JACK SOLOMON, RELATOR,
v.
DR. DAVID P. SLOAN, JR., DR. FRANK J. ALTIERI, DR. EDWARD K. WALKER, DR. B. E. TEDESON, AND DR. FRANK S. FINGER, AS CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, 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.
Florida optometrist's petition for writ of prohibition against the State Board of Optometry was denied because he failed to establish prima facie evidence that board members were prejudiced and unable to provide a fair hearing.
A licensee seeking prohibition against a licensing board must present factual allegations, not mere conclusions, to establish that board members are prejudiced and cannot provide a fair hearing.
[1] To obtain a writ of prohibition against a licensing board on grounds of prejudice, a petitioner must allege specific facts demonstrating bias, not mere conclusory stateme…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The affidavits herein are insufficient as a matter of law because they assert conclusions that the relator is unable to receive a fair hearing without stating facts from which such a conclusion could be reached.”
Court's explanation of why the petition failed to meet the prima facie standard for prohibition.
Dr. Solomon, a licensed optometrist, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Florida State Board of Optometry from conducting a disciplinary heari…
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 Prima Facie Showing cases and more on FLexlaw
Relator, a licensed optometrist, has filed in this court a suggestion for the issuance of a writ of prohibition against Florida State Board of Optometry and each and every member thereof to restrain the Board from proceeding with a hearing on charges that could result in the suspension or revocation of relator’s license.
The suggestion is premised on the assertion that each and every member of the Board is prejudiced against the relator and unable to grant him a fair hearing because the complaining witnesses were investigators employed by the Board. Thus relator in essence attacks the method by which the Board supervises and regulates the practice of the profession of optometry in this state.
After reviewing the affidavits and hearing argument in this cause, we hold that relator has failed to make a prima facie showing for the relief he seeks. The affidavits herein are insufficient as a matter of law because they assert conclusions that the relator is unable to receive a fair hearing without stating facts from which such a conclusion could be reached. The assertions in relator’s affidavit do not afford a basis in reason or common sense- for a conclusion that the Board members are prejudiced against relator and will not give him a fair hearing. Cf. City of Palatka v. Frederick, 128 Fla. 366, 174 So. 826 (1937).
The suggestion for writ of prohibition is denied.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Solomon v. Sloan, 239 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied. 234 So. 2d 697. ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- City of Palatka v. Frederick, 128 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1937)