LYNCH-DAVIDSON MOTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN D. CALVIN, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 denied the petition to vacate an opinion and rescind a license, finding the lower court's findings of fact were adequately supported.
Following a prior remand for specific findings, the respondent entered a final order granting a Ford franchised dealer license. The petitioner challen…
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 Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Judge.
The factual background of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari which we here again consider is sufficiently recited in our prior opinion filed on December 31, 1974 (Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. v. Calvin, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 308 So. 2d 197) and no useful purpose will be served by repetition here. We concluded that opinion by remanding with directions that an appropriate final order be entered and by directing that same contain specific findings of fact based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing before Respondent.
Respondent has now entered a final order containing specific findings, concluding “that the evidence supported the granting to the applicant * * * of a license to act as a Ford franchised dealer.” That final order has been made a part of the record in this cause. Petitioner has responded by filing a “Petition to Vacate Opinion and Rescind Challenged License” wherein Petitioner challenges the findings contained in the above mentioned final order and renews its prayer that the challenged license issued to Respondent Miller Joiner Ford, Inc. be rescinded.
We have carefully examined the record in the light of the above mentioned final order entered by Respondent John D. Calvin and in the light of the urgings and recitations contained in Petitioner’s petition, and find that the findings of fact contained in said final order are a sufficient foundation for the action taken by Respondents and that those findings find adequate support in the record.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s “Petition to Vacate Opinion and Rescind Challenged License” is denied as is its Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
It is so ordered.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bill Kelley Chevrolet, Inc. v. Calvin, 322 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…in the territory is inadequate distinguishes this case from Hess Marine, Inc. v. Calvin, 296 So. 2d 114 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974) and Barnard & Russell Ent., Inc. v. Calvin, 296 So. 2d 115 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974). See Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. v. Calvin, 311 So. 2d 792 (Fla. App.1st, 1975). We have also considered, but we cannot sustain, petitioners’ other point of attack upon the Director’s order. The petition for review is Dismissed. RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)