STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES, APPELLANT,
v.
ROLAND EDWARDS ADAMS, APPELLEE
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 Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles appeals a circuit court judgment that granted a writ of certiorari and ordered reinstatement of Roland Adams' driver's license. The appellate court holds that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Adams filed his certiorari petition 41 days after the final administrative decision, exceeding the 30-day filing requirement, and therefore reverses and quashes the judgment.
The circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the certiorari petition was not filed within 30 days of the final agency decision. The time period for filing is jurisdictional, and therefore the circuit court's judgment granting the writ of certiorari and directing reinstatement must be quashed.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari must be filed within 30 days from the rendition of the decision, order, judgment, or decree sought to be reviewed, and this time period…
[2] A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to consider a case if the petition for writ of certiorari is not timely filed.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 time period allowed by the rule for filing the petition is jurisdictional.”
Establishes that the 30-day filing deadline is a jurisdictional requirement, not merely a procedural guideline, making the circuit court's failure to dismiss dispositive.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 10, 1973, the Department revoked Adams' driving privilege pursuant to Florida statute for having 15 moving traffic offenses within five years…
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 Final Agency Action cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant, the State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Driver Licenses, appeals a final judgment which granted petition for writ of certiorari brought by appellee Roland Adams from an order entered by appellant denying appellee’s motion for reinstatement of his driver’s license. The final judgment directed appellant to reinstate the license.
Appellant contends that the circuit court erred by failing to dismiss appellee’s petition for certiorari upon the ground that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. We agree. By appellant’s order of April 10, 1973, appellee’s driving privilege in the State of Florida was revoked effective April 15, 1973, pursuant to § 322.27(5), Fla.Stat. (1972 Supp.), by virtue of his having been convicted of 15 moving traffic offenses within a five year period. Appellee later seeking reinstatement applied for and was granted an administrative hearing which was held on September 5,1975. Thereafter on September 17, 1975, the reviewing board of appellant denied reinstatement. Appel-lee was advised of the action of the reviewing board by a form issued by appellant on September 17, 1975, which set out the action taken by the board. Thereafter, appel-lee’s attorney corresponded with appellant inquiring as to the basis for the determination by appellant of the denial of the reinstatement. On October 28, 1975, appellee filed petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit -Court of Duval County “seeking review of the order of revocation.”
As above stated, the order of revocation was issued on April 10, 1973. Final agency action on reinstatement occurred on September 17, 1975, when appellant’s reviewing board denied reinstatement. Fla. App. Rule 4.5c requires that application for writ of certiorari be filed in the court within 30 days from the rendition of the decision, order, judgment or decree sought to be reviewed. Appellee’s petition for writ of certiorari was not filed in the Circuit Court of Duval County until 41 days after the final decision of appellant. The time period allowed by the rule for filing the petition is jurisdictional. Powell v. Civil Service Board of Escambia County, 154 So. 2d 917 (Fla.App. 1, 1963). The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case.
The trial court, in its final judgment found that the “final order” did not “include findings of fact and conclusions of law separately stated” and that there were no “concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts of record which support the findings” as is required by § 120.59, Fla.Stat. (1975), (the Administrative Procedure Act). We have heretofore ruled, in cases where the petition for certiorari was timely filed, that findings of fact based upon the evidence must be made. McCulley Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 189 (Fla.App. 1, 1975); Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 197 (Fla.App. 1, 1975); Bill Kelley Chevrolet, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 199 (Fla.App. 1, 1974). In this case, however, the court was without jurisdiction to rule upon the question.
§ 120.68, Fla.Stat. (1975), (the Administrative Procedure Act) provides in part as follows:
“(1) A party who is adversely affected by final agency action is entitled to judicial review. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling is immediately reviewable if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.
(2) Except in matters for which judicial review by the supreme court is provided by law, all proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the district court of appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides.”
In apparent conflict with the above statute, § 322.31, Fla.Stat. (1975), provides as follows:
“The final orders and rulings of the department [of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles] wherein any person is denied a license, or where such license has been cancelled, suspended or revoked, shall be reviewable in the manner and within the time provided by the Florida appellate rules only by a writ of certiorari issued by the circuit court in the county wherein such person shall reside, in the manner prescribed by the Florida appellate rules.”
The parties did not question whether or not under the above statute the circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of certiorari from an order of appellant. Since we are quashing the judgment on other grounds and the point was not raised by the parties, we make no ruling thereon but will leave the question to be raised in a proper case.
Writ of certiorari is granted and final judgment is quashed.
SMITH, J., concurs.
BOYER, C. J., concurs specially.
BOYER, Chief Judge
(concurring specially)-
I am of the view that actions of appellant misled appellee’s attorney and lulled him into a sense of security which resulted in the untimely filing now complained of. Nevertheless, the issue before us is one of jurisdiction, over which neither we nor the Circuit Court have control. I, accordingly, concur in the result reached for the reasons stated in the majority opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pressley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 367 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1979)…549 (Fla.1958); Columbia Cas. Co. v. McFee, 81 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 1955); Wieczorek v. Williams, 71 So. 2d 262 (Fla.1954); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mack, 64 So. 2d 304, 307 (Fla.1952); State Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Adams, 338 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Flinchbaugh v. Burton, 312 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Hayes v. State, 151 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla.2d DCA 1963); Harris v. Condermann, 113 So. 2d 235, 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). . See, e. g., Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72…
-
State v. Joannou, 353 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…rtiorari inasmuch as, it was not timely filed. We find merit in the state’s contention and reverse. The petition should have been dismissed. See State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Driver Licenses v. Adams, 338 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Reversed.…
-
GOW v. Cnty. OF Dade, 371 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…aboard Life Ins. Co., 224 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1969); State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Joannou, 353 So. 2d 164 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. dismissed, 355 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1978); State Department of Highway Safety v. Adams, 338 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Flinchblaugh v. Burton, 312 So. 2d 827 (Fla.4th DCA 1975), cert. dismissed, 317 So. 2d 769 (Fla.1975). That count in the complaint demanding compensatory damages for wages withheld during appellant’s period of suspension was pro…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCULLEY Ford, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Lynch-Davidson Motors, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Bill Kelley Chevrolet, Inc. v. Calvin, 308 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Powell v. Civil Serv. Bd. OF Escambia Cnty., 154 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)