BARNARD & RUSSELL ENTERPRISES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A HONDA CITY, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN D. CALVIN, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND P & M TRANSIT COMPANY, INC., D/B/A HONDA OF DAYTONA, 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.
Petitioner Barnard & Russell Enterprises sought certiorari review of an order by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles granting a motor vehicle dealer license to Honda of Daytona. The court found the Director's order infected with the same infirmity as a prior case and remanded for the Director to enter findings of fact, threatening to reconsider rescission if not promptly corrected.
The Director's order was infected with the same infirmity as in McCulley Ford. Certiorari was granted and the cause was remanded with directions that the Director enter an appropriate final order containing specific findings of fact based upon evidence adduced at the hearing. If the Director failed to accomplish this promptly, the court would reconsider rescinding the license.
[1] A court may grant a writ of certiorari to review an order of the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles granting a motor vehicle dealer license.
[2] An order granting a motor vehicle dealer license may be quashed if it suffers from the same infirmity as a prior, similar order.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“we find respondent Calvin's order to be infected with the same infirmity as was his order in McCulley Ford, Inc. v. Calvin”
Establishes that the Director's order contained the same legal deficiency identified in a related case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarnard & Russell Enterprises challenged the Director's grant of a motor vehicle dealer license to P & M Transit Company d/b/a Honda of Daytona. The s…
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 De Novo Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of respondent John D. Calvin as Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles of the State of Florida granting respondent P & M Transit Company, Inc., doing business as Honda of Daytona, a license as a motor vehicle dealer. The same parties were before this court on a previous order granting the same authority to Honda of Daytona and that order was quashed. See Barnard and Russell Enterprises, Inc. v. Calvin, Fla.App. (1st), 296 So. 2d 115.
Petitioner states, among other things, that after respondent Calvin rescinded the previous license, Honda of Daytona filed a petition for rehearing and subsequently filed a new application; that petitioner cannot tell whether the subsequent hearing and action by respondent Calvin was on the petition for rehearing or the new application. Respondent Calvin states that his order upon which review is now sought was entered upon the new application and a hearing de novo was held; that it has given no consideration to the petition for rehearing. We consider the order now before us for review only in that light (a new application). Upon consideration of the record, briefs, oral argument and supplemental briefs, we find respondent Calvin’s order to be infected with the same infirmity as was his order in McCulley Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, Fla. App. (1st), 308 So. 2d 189. Therefore, certiorari is granted but we do not at this time direct recision of the license issued pursuant to the order here for review but we remand the cause with directions that an appropriate final order be entered which shall contain specific findings of fact based upon evidence adduced at the hearing before respondent. Should such not be accomplished forthwith, then this court will, upon appropriate petition, reconsider its failure to here and now direct recision of the challenged license.
It is so ordered.
JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and MILLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCULLEY Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Barnard & Russell Enters., Inc. v. Calvin, 296 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)