A. WILLIAM MORRISON, DEWEY H. JOHNSON, S. E. SIMMONS, RUSSELL J. DAVIS AND CLYDE MORRIS, AS MEMBERS OF AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PHARMACY, PETITIONERS,
v.
MAX PLOTKIN, 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.
A Florida pharmacist licensed in New Jersey sought declaratory relief to compel the Board of Pharmacy to prescribe specific additional requirements for licensure without first applying through established administrative procedures. The court held that no justiciable issue existed and the plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
The court held that the bill should have been dismissed because no justiciable issue was presented and because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The plaintiff must first apply to the Board or pursue reciprocal registration before seeking judicial relief.
“no justiciable issue was presented and because the plaintiff had made no effort to exhaust his administrative remedies”
States the core basis for dismissal—both lack of ripeness and failure to pursue administrative remedies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMax Plotkin, a pharmacist licensed in New Jersey, filed a bill seeking a judicial decree requiring the Florida Board of Pharmacy to prescribe addition…
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 Justiciable Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS, Justice.
The respondent filed a bill seeking a decree construing Sec. 465.071(1), Florida Statutes 1953 and F.S.A., and directing the Florida Board of Pharmacy “to prescribe, pursuant to subparagraph (d) [of the act] the additional requirements as to age, education, experience and moral character which will effectuate the intentions of the Legislature * * At first the chancellor dismissed the bill on motion of the present petitioner then, on rehearing, he rescinded his order. We think he was correct the first time. The respondent concedes in his brief that he has not applied to the Board of Pharmacy for permission to take the examination so that his fitness to practice pharmacy in this state can be determined; and so far as we can learn from the record, he has not applied for reciprocal registration, or shown that Sec. 465.081, Florida Statutes 1953 and F.S.A., providing for registration here, under certain conditions, of pharmacists qualified in another state is applicable by reason of the fact the State of New Jersey, where the respondent claims to have been licensed, grants registration under the same circumstances to pharmicists of this state.
Our view is that the bill should have been dismissed because no justiciable issue was presented and because the plaintiff had made no effort to exhaust his administrative remedies. Ervin v. City of North Miami Beach, Fla., 66 So. 2d 235; De Carlo v. Town of West Miami, Fla., 49 So. 2d 596.
The petition for certiorari is granted and the order vacating the order granting the motion to dismiss is quashed with directions to dismiss the bill.
MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL, SEBRING and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Scott v. Nat'l Airlines, Inc., 150 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1963)…have been dismissed on the ground that state law required exhaustion of administrative remedies as a condition precedent to suit. Transcontinental & Western Air v. Koppal, 345 U.S. 653, 73 S.Ct. 906, 97 L.Ed. 1325. . Morrison, v. Plotkin, Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 254; De Carlo v. Town of West Miami, Florida, Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 596. . Cone v. Union Oil Co., 1954, 129 Cal. App.2d 558, 277 P. 2d 464; Hooser v. Baltimore & O. R. R., 7th Cir., 1960, 279 F. 2d 197, citing Supreme Council of the Order of Chosen Frien…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Polk Pools, Inc., 124 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…. Relying on the proposition that a provided administrative remedy must be resorted to before seeking any court relief from an administrative regulation (citing DeCarlo v. Town of West Miami, Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 596; Morrison v. Plotkin, Fla. 1955, 77 So. 2d 254; Hennessy v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 176), appellants contended that the South Florida Building Code provides for appeal to an established Board of Rules and Appeals having power to affirm, modify or reverse the ruling of t…
-
The Fla. Citrus Comm'n & Indian River Citrus League v. Owens, 239 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…an only conclude the appellee made a special, rather than general, attack, upon the citrus regulations, which should have been presented first to the commission. De Carlo v. Town of West Miami, Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 596; Morrison v. Plotkin, Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 254; Stewart v. Stone, Fla.1961, 130 So. 2d 577; Ferris v. Board of Public Instruction of Sumter County, Fla.App.1960, 119 So. 2d 389. 2. The Commission’s resolutions under attack were based upon its authority to implement, interpret and make provision…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- De Carlo v. Town of W. Miami, 49 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1950)
- Ervin v. City of N. Miami Beach, 66 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1953)