FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIRAMAR, PETITIONER,
v.
GERALD A. LEWIS, AS COMPTROLLER AND AS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND BARNETT BANK OF HOLLYWOOD IN MIRAMAR, FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS

Fla. 1st DCA | 1978-03-08
No. II-479
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
355 So. 2d 869 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1978) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

The court denied the petitioner's motion to stay the Department's order authorizing a bank branch opening.

Facts & Procedural History

First National Bank of Miramar petitioned for review of an order authorizing a branch of The Barnett Bank of Hollywood. Petitioner sought a stay of th…

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.

Topics
Motion To Stay Agency Expertise Irreparable Injury Administrative Procedure Act

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Stay cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Judge.

ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY

SMITH, Judge.

First National Bank of Miramar, having petitioned for review of a Department of Banking and Finance order authorizing a Miramar branch of The Barnett Bank of Hollywood, now moves that we stay the Department’s order pending our review of the merits. Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976).

Petitioner, a competitor bank, urges that the public and the depositors of the branch will suffer irreparable injury should the branch open and later be forced to close as a result of an adverse decision in this court. Petitioner first presented its motion to stay to the Department. That was entirely appropriate; prior application to the affected agency is an essential predicate for our consideration of stay petitions in cases arising under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Department denied a stay for several reasons, among them that any necessary closure of the branch would not have the disastrous effect on the banking climate which petitioner describes; and that the applicant bank should be privileged to make its own decision whether to open the branch without further delay, with knowledge that the Department’s favorable order is subject to review on the merits by this court.

We conceive that the Department has spoken clearly and persuasively concerning matters within its area of expertise, and that we should accord great weight to the Department’s decision. Petitioner does not claim that the Department took action without complying with essential Chapter 120 procedures, as by denying an essential hearing; the questions raised by the petition for review relate solely to the merits of the branch bank application. In these circumstances, and in the light of the Department’s cogent advice to the applicant bank concerning the risks involved, petitioner’s motion to stay is

DENIED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Ctr., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. & W. Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Ctr., 475 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
    …es Planning Act in accord with established principles of administrative law. West Boca argues that we should decline to stay the effect of the CON pending administrative proceedings and relies on the case of First National Bank of Miramar v. Lewis, 355 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). There, First National Bank moved this court for a stay of the Department of Banking and Finances' order authorizing a [*263] competitor bank pending review in this court. First National Bank argued that the public would suffer i…
  • Groves-Watkins Constructors v. State, 511 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
    …rdered to cease and desist. Again we disagree. We are of the view that an agency, as any other litigant, proceeds at its peril when jts authority to act has been challenged and is presently under review. See, First National Bank of Miramar v. Lewis, 355 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Mann v. Thompson, 118 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Furthermore, this court has rejected the argument in a bidding dispute that any practical relief to the contesting bidder is precluded when the contract is already being exec…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw