JAMES LILLYMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, 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.
In this certiorari review case, James Lillyman's driver's license revocation was upheld by the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District. The court held that while the hearing officer erred in limiting cross-examination and refusing to allow testimony, the proper remedy is remand for further proceedings, not dismissal of the license revocation proceeding.
The court held that when evidentiary errors occur in an administrative hearing, the proper remedy is remand for further proceedings, not dismissal. Petitioner is not entitled to dismissal of the license revocation proceeding.
[1] An administrative hearing officer commits error by limiting cross-examination on a relevant matter.
[2] An administrative hearing officer commits error by refusing to allow a proffer of testimony.
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“When an evidentiary error is made in an administrative hearing, the remedy is to remand for further proceedings.”
Establishes the governing principle that remand, not dismissal, is the proper remedy for evidentiary errors in administrative hearings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLillyman's driver's license was revoked following a formal administrative hearing. At that hearing, the hearing officer limited Lillyman's cross-exami…
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 Right To Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Petitioner’s driver’s license was revoked after a formal hearing at which his cross-examination of the arresting officer was limited and his right to proffer testimony denied. On certiorari review, the circuit court agreed with petitioner that the hearing officer committed error in limiting cross-examination on a relevant matter and refusing to allow a proffer, so the court granted the petition and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Petitioner sought certiorari review in this court, claiming that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in remanding for further proceedings.
When an evidentiary error is made in an administrative hearing, the remedy is to remand for further proceedings. See, e.g., Bass v. Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission, 627 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (erroneous exclusion of testimony required remand for further proceedings). The remedy is similar to granting a new trial when an error is made during trial regarding the admissibility of testimony. See, e.g., Young v. State, 522 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (remand for new trial required where court improperly restricted defendant’s cross-examination of key prosecution witness on matters crucial to witness’ credibility); Sadler v. State, 509 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (precluding defense from proffering rebuttal testimony violates substantive due process and fair play, so case remanded for new trial); Kelly v. State, 425 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (denial of right to explore on cross-examination possible basis for impeachment requires remand for a new trial). Petitioner is not entitled to dismissal of the license revocation proceeding.
PETITION DENIED.
HARRIS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Pitts, 815 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…t address the Department’s argument that, even if an evidentiary error was made in the administrative hearing, the proper remedy was for the circuit court to remand for further proceedings. See Lillyman v. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 645 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The Department failed to raise this argument in the proceeding below and, thus, has not preserved it for appellate review. See Sun Ray Homes, Inc. v. County of Dade, 166 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The petition for writ of c…
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Icaza, 37 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…atter, however, because [*312] Pelham did not involve the issue of remand. We conclude that the circuit court applied the wrong law when it refused to remand the case to the hearing officer. See Lillyman v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 645 So. 2d 113, 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Chamizo, 753 So. 2d 749, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Because the hearing officer did not have the benefit of Pelham, he relied on the provisions of section 322.2615(7), which…
-
State v. Griffin, 909 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…in the administrative hearing in allowing the certificate to be submitted as evidence by the hearing officer, the proper remedy was for the circuit court to remand for further proceedings. See Lillyman v. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 645 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The Department failed to raise this argument in the proceeding below and, thus, has not preserved it for appellate review. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Pitts, 815 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)(citing Sun R…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kelly v. State, 425 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Young v. State, 522 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Jacobs v. State, 522 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Sadler v. State, 509 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- ST. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. MacDONALD, 509 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Bass v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enf't, 627 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)