Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...[4] Charbonier required the Division of Beverage of the Department of Business Regulation to conduct a judicial-type hearing before making an "executive decision" in a license revocation proceeding. 282 So.2d at 172. Although support for the court's action was found in § 561.29, Fla....

...of the charges. It is undisputed that the evidence failed to show Heifetz was involved in or knowingly condoned the illegal drug activity; therefore, the only basis for culpability would be negligent supervision or lack of diligence, in violation of section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...NOTES [1] The charges contained in the notice to show cause alleged the following: 1. That you, Melvin Heifetz, d/b/a Key Wester Inn, licensed under the beverage laws, by and through your agent, servant or employee, Lori Ann Hart, did violate Florida Statute 561.29(1)(a) and Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) by the felony sale and/or delivery of cocaine on the following occasions: a....

...On or about September 17, 1983, sale of cocaine to Beverage Officer Delmonte while on the licensed premises. 2. That you, Melvin Heifetz, d/b/a Key Wester Inn, licensed under the beverage laws, by and through your agent, servant or employee, Linda, did violate Florida Statute 561.29(1)(a) and Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a) by the felony sale and/or delivery of cocaine on the following occasions: a....

...On or about September 22, 1983, sale of cocaine to Beverage Officer Oliva and/or Delmonte while on the licensed premises. 3. That you, Melvin Heifetz, d/b/a Key Wester Inn, licensed under the beverage laws, by and through your agent, servant or employee, Lori Ann Hart, did violate Florida Statute 561.29(1)(a) and 777.011 and/or 777.04 on or about September 22, 1983, by aiding, abetting and/or conspiring with your agent, servant or employee, Linda, to sell cocaine to Beverage Officer Oliva while on the licensed premises....

...rsons using controlled substances in violation of Chapter 893, F.S. or for the purpose of using said substances or which is used for keeping or selling the same in violation of Chapter 893, F.S. and Florida Statute 893.13(2)(a)5. and Florida Statute 561.29(1)(a)....

...r building which is visited to by persons for the purpose of unlawfully using, keeping, selling, and/or delivering controlled substances in violation of Chapter 893, F.S., the same being in violation of: a. Florida Statute 823.10 and Florida Statute 561.29(1)(c); b. Florida Statute 823.01 and Florida Statute 561.29(1)(a). [2] § 120.57, Fla. Stat. (1983). [3] Section 561.29(1)(a), provides: (1) The division is given full power and authority to revoke or suspend the license of any person holding a license under the Beverage Law, when it is determined or found by the division upon sufficient cause appearing...

...Certiorari is issued and the order is quashed. The statement contained in Crone v. Peeples, Fla.App. 1960, 124 So.2d 876 (concurring opinion), represents a correct exposition of the law to the effect that the power to issue the notice to show cause under F.S.A. § 561.29(3) is limited to the beverage director and cannot be delegated....

...Chapters 561 and 562. When a beverage licensee violates certain laws and regulations the beverage director is given the authority to revoke or suspend the license. The comprehensive and lengthy step-by-step procedure to be followed in such instances is found in F.S.A. § 561.29, entitled "Revocation and suspension of license; power to subpoena; hearing; appeal to courts." It is noticed therein that the beverage director alone is designated as the person to perform certain of the duties and procedural steps....

...As to certain other duties and procedural steps the beverage director "or any assistant designated by him" *67 is denominated and empowered to act. The language in either event is unequivocal. The part of the statute under direct consideration is found in F.S.A. § 561.29(3) which provides: "Before the director shall revoke or suspend the license of any licensee, he shall give such licensee a written statement of such cause for revocation or suspension of license * * *." Can by some legerdemain words such as...

...Proceedings for the revocation of a beverage license are administrative and equitable in nature and not criminal. Damar Corporation v. Lee, Fla.App. 1963, 155 So.2d 655. The beverage director is authorized to fix civil penalties for the violation of the beverage law, including the revocation of license. F.S.A. § 561.29(4)....

...ction 1 of Article V; (b) Section 1 of Article III of the Florida Constitution; and (c) the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. These points are raised by demurrer filed by the Beverage Director and directed to the suggestion in prohibition. Section 561.29, Fla....

...Liquor cannot be sold within certain distances from churches or schools outside of municipalities, nor to persons under 21 years of age. The Beverage Act prescribes additional prerequisites unnecessary to enumerate. Section 7 of Chapter 22663, Acts of 1945, amending Section 561.29, Fla....

...rights of the licensee and not for the adjudication of error. If the charge is found sufficient and to be supported by a preponderance of legal proof, the Court enters its judgment accordingly. ...” It is contended that the following provisions of Section 561.29 (FSA), as amended, violates relator’s constitutional rights: (1) the director or any assistant designated by him shall have the power and authority to examine into the business, books, records and accounts of any licensee; (2) to iss...

...gives the supervisors access to and the right to inspect the premises of all licensees to collect taxes and to examine the books and records of all licensees. It makes it the duty of the supervisors to require strict compliance with the laws relating to "the transaction of such business." Section 561.29, F.S.A....

...Had they resisted arrest or search, they no doubt would have been prosecuted for resisting an officer. 47 Am.Jur., Sec. 46, p. 528; 47 Am.Jur., Sec. 71, p. 547; 79 C.J.S., Searches and Seizures, § 62(b), p. 820; Dunnavant v. State, Fla., 46 So.2d 871. The appellee places great reliance upon Section 561.29, F.S.A....

...823.05, F.S.A. concerning the maintenance of a nuisance and which makes gambling a nuisance. These sections have nothing to do with criminal prosecutions for violations of the beverage laws or with reference to gambling or any other crime. Although Section 561.29, F.S.A....

...w, *36 thus leading to the conclusion that despite the licensees' absence from the premises, they either condoned or negligently overlooked the illegal activities. We are unpersuaded by the purported analogy of those cases to the circumstances here. Section 561.29(1)(a) authorizes the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to revoke or suspend the license of any person when the Division finds that either the licensee or his agents have violated certain laws of the state on the licensed premises....

...emises or the supervision of his employees, he could be found guilty of negligence and his license revoked. The standard of simple negligence does not apply to the revocation or suspension of a dentist's license. The provisions of Section 466.38 and 561.29 are markedly different and must be construed differently....

...Additionally, when a statute authorizes revocation of a license for certain enumerated causes, the license cannot be revoked for any ground other than those causes specified. State ex rel. Williams v. Whitman, 116 Fla. 196, 156 So. 705 (1934); In re Weathers, 159 Fla. 390, 31 So.2d 543 (1947). Section 466.38 — unlike 561.29 — requires as a precondition to the suspension of a dentist's license that the dentist permit his employee to perform an unauthorized operation....

quasi-judicial function by a court, board or commission. Section 561.29 F.S.A. authorized the direction to revoke a

...§ 561.58, F.S.A., which has special application where a license is revoked covering a landlord's premises. Said section reads as follows: "Issuance of license for a prior license revoked. — When a license is revoked by the director under the authority granted in § 561.29, it shall be within the discretion of the director to prohibit or permit a license provided for in §§ 561.34 and 561.35 to be issued for the location of the place of business formerly operated under such revoked license; provided the maxi...

...hat any such license shall be prohibited by the director from any such place of business shall be two years from the first day of the succeeding October following such revocation." Where a beverage license is revoked by the Director pursuant to F.S. § 561.29, F.S.A., covering a landlord's premises, F.S....

...Consequently, only on a single Friday night, September 3, 1983, did the town manager and town police attempt to enforce prohibited hours of sale in accordance with section 562.14(1). At all other times, such sales were deemed regulated by ordinance. The Division filed charges against each appellant pursuant to section 561.29, Florida Statutes, alleging that on September 3, 1983, appellants sold alcoholic beverages after 12 midnight, contrary to section 562.14, Florida Statutes....

...On May 14, 1975, the division filed an administrative complaint against Harvey, alleging that he had earlier pled guilty to one count of a drug violation, had been adjudicated guilty of same, and such conduct was grounds for revoking his license pursuant to Section 561.29 of the beverage laws....

...Without stating any specific findings of fact to refute those of the hearing officer, the division found that "a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner's [Division] contention that Henry Harvey was convicted of a felony in Case No. 74-730, in Marion County, Florida, in violation of Florida Statutes 561.29 of the Beverage Laws"....

...Freidus, Miami, for petitioners. Okell & Okell, Miami, for respondent. CARROLL, CHAS., Judge. The respondent, Ernal, Inc., a Florida corporation, doing business as Liberty City Amusement Park, was proceeded against by the State Beverage Department of Florida, under § 561.29, Fla....

...d times over a three day period during March of 1961". This Court's opinion quoting from and adopting the Circuit Judge's order as to the facts adduced at the hearing before the Director, said: "At a hearing held by the beverage director pursuant to Section 561.29 F.S.A., two beverage department agents and two City of Tampa police officers testified that various entertainers at the Celebrity Club, who were employed by petitioner, sat with each one of the beverage agents and police officers on se...

...who heard the testimony and was in a position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Pritchett v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla. App. 1962, 143 So.2d 45." *325 The Pauline opinion then decided the merits of the appeal by first quoting F.S. Section 561.29(1) (a) F.S.A., viz: "(1) The director is given full power and authority to revoke or suspend the license of any person, firm or corporation holding a license under the beverage law, where it is determined or found by the director upon...

...The facts in each case showed that the prohibited sales were made despite the owner's efforts to prevent same. In each case the owner was charged with but one single violation and the beverage department's order of suspension was overturned by the appellate court. In view of these cases, we do not construe Section 561.29(1) (a), Florida Statutes (1959), F.S.A ., as requiring a liquor licensee to be an absolute insurer against violations of the law on his premises committed by or through his employees....

...The advent of the holiday season reminds us that there has never been but one perfect Man and they crucified Him before He was middle-aged. The writ of certiorari is accordingly granted and the administrative order here under review is quashed. SHANNON, Acting C.J., and HOBSON, J., concur. NOTES [1] F.S. Sec. 561.29, F.S.A.; F.S....

...This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court denying certiorari to a licensee whose beverage license was suspended for an alleged violation of the state beverage laws. The suspension was ordered following a hearing before the Director of the State Beverage Department who by F.S. § 561.29, F.S.A., is vested with authority to take such action after affording the licensee "a fair hearing" on a written statement setting forth the alleged violation....

...o final hearing on the merits. The chancellor did not rule on the validity of the order revoking petitioners' beverage license. In support of their petition petitioners rely on House v. Cotton, Fla., 52 So.2d 340, and subsections (1), (3) and (4) of Section 561.29, F.S.A., requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard before revoking one's liquor license....

...permit to do so must be approved by the State Beverage Department, after he is duly licensed to do so he should not be shot on the ground before giving him a chance to rebut the charge against him, account of his labor and investment. See also F.S. Section 561.29, F.S.A.; In re Carter, 85 U.S.App.D.C....

...gle incidents by each participant, we hold that these incidents cannot legally provide a basis for the inference of negligence and lack of due diligence necessary to support the Division's imposition of discipline. Although the statutory language in section 561.29(1) has since 1957 spoken in terms of the Division's power to revoke or suspend a beverage license for violations of the beverage law committed by a licensee, or "its agents, officers, servants, or employees," the courts of this state h...

...structed his female employees not to solicit or date customers, and that he had dismissed a few female employees for soliciting men to have sexual relations with them. The second district upheld the license revocation, stating: A literal reading of [section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes] would indicate that a liquor licensee is under the onus of suspension or revocation of his license for any violation of law committed by his employees on his premises, irrespective of his own personal fault in connection therewith....

...olation of law on his premises, a licensee should be found to have been culpably responsible for such violation through or as a result of his own negligence, intentional wrongdoing or lack of diligence. ... In view of these cases, we do not construe Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1959), F.S.A., as requiring a liquor licensee to be an absolute insurer against violations of the law on *252 his premises committed by or through his employees....

...NOTES [1] The Division is granted authority to revoke or suspend a beverage license when the Division finds that either the licensee or its agents, officers, servants, or employees have violated state laws regarding the sale, service, or consumption of alcoholic beverages. § 561.29(1), Fla. Stat. (1989). The Division is also authorized to impose a civil penalty against a licensee for any violation of the Beverage Law (Ch. 561-562, Fla. Stat.), not to exceed $1,000 for violations arising out of a single transaction. § 561.29(3), Fla....

...We are thus unable to accept the contention raised and conclude that the agency head properly denied appellant's motion to disqualify. Appellant next argues that the record did not contain sufficient competent evidence to support the revocation. Florida Statute 561.29(1) grants the Division authority to revoke or suspend a beverage license when the Division finds that either the licensee or his agents have violated certain laws of the state on the licensed premises....

...mented new policy relative to the degree of care that should be exercised by licensees in maintaining their businesses free from narcotic activity. Appellant misinterprets the proper standard for revocation or suspension of a beverage license. Under Section 561.29(1), where the unlawful activity is committed by the licensee's agent, simple negligence is sufficient for revocation....

...Appellant reasons that since revocation of a license is much harsher than suspension, the same evidence *279 which is substantial enough to support suspension may not support revocation. Appellant overlooks the fact that the evidence found sufficient to support a thirty-day suspension is, under the applicable statute [Sec. 561.29, Fla....

...of Business Regulation, 393 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), cited by appellant, the discipline imposed in the instant case was for violation of an explicit statute or rule. There can be no doubt that Florida law expressly prohibits possession, use and sale of drugs, and Section 561.29(1) provides for license suspension or revocation upon violation of any law of the state on the licensed premises....

...Elizabeth Gervais, the owner of the Stardust Bar, filed a petition for writ of certiorari [1] seeking review of an emergency order entered by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco which suspended operation of the bar's liquor license. We affirm the suspension order. [2] Pursuant to section 561.29 and section 120.60(7), Florida Statutes (1981), the Division entered its order of emergency suspension on June 29, 1983, after beverage officers observed ten drug transactions take place at the bar over a five-day period....

...other provisions or application of the rule which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, provisions of this rule are severable. Specific Authority 561.11 FS. Law Implemented 561.02, 561.07, 561.08, 561.11, 561.29(1)(a) FS....

...State, 330 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1976). What the majority finds wanting is legislative authority for this kind of regulation. I find such authority in Sections 561.02 and 561.11, Florida Statutes (1977), quoted in the majority opinion, and more particularly in Section 561.29, which the majority opinion does not mention....

...rity goal for all state agencies. Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1977); McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). By invalidating this rule as without legislative authority, notwithstanding its relationship to Section 561.29, the court casts doubt on whether the Division may apply the "disorderly conduct" standard in the other, less preferable, fashion, by case-to-case adjudication....

...Maloney, Tallahassee, for appellee. MILLS, Acting Chief Judge. G & B seeks review of an order of the Division of Beverage finding that six of G & B's agents, servants or employees violated Section 798.02, Florida Statutes (1977), thereby violating Section 561.29, Florida Statutes (1977), and suspending G & B's liquor license for thirty days. We affirm. Section 798.02 provides that a person who engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. Section 561.29 gives the Division authority to suspend a beverage license when the Division finds upon sufficient cause that a licensee or its agents, officers, servants or employees, on the licensed premises, while in the scope of employment, has violated any law of this State....

ALLEN, Acting Chief Judge. Appellant, petitioner below, is the holder of a license to sell alcoholic beverages at his place of business known as the Celebrity Club and located in Tampa. On April 13, 1961, pursuant to Section 561.29, Florida Statutes (1959), F.S.A., the Director of the State Beverage Department, appellee here and respondent below, caused to be issued and served on appellant, hereinafter referred to as licensee, a notice to show cause why his license to sell alcoholic beverages should not be revoked or suspended....

...oupled with the quoted findings of fact made by the director. Said sum *361 mary and findings followed by the lower court’s own observations and conclusions of law are set forth as follows: “At a hearing held by the beverage director pursuant to Section 561.29 F.S.A., two beverage department agents and two City of Tampa police officers testified that various entertainers at the Celebrity Club, who were employed by petitioner, sat with each one of the beverage agents and police officers on se...

...March 24, 1961, both dates inclusive, at his licensed place of business, he and/or his employee were keeping, setting up, maintaining or operating a place for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or prostitution, in violation of Sections 796.07 and 561.29, Florida Statutes; and from about March 21, 1961 to about March 24, 1961, both dates inclusive, at his licensed place of business, three of his white female employees whose names are not known but who are known as and called Rita, Sojna or Sonia, and Jeannie were offering to commit or committing, or engaging in prostitution, lewdness or assignation, in violation of Sections 796.07 and 561.29, Florida Statutes; and from about March 21, 1961, to about March 24, 1961, both dates inclusive, at his licensed place of business, three of his white female employees whose names are not known but who are known as and called Rita, Sojna or Sonia, and Jeannie wére soliciting, inducing, enticing or procuring others to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation with themselves, in violation of Sections 796.07 and 561.29, Florida Statutes; and from about March 21, 1961, to about March 24, 1961, both dates inclusive, at his licensed place of business, he and/or his employee were aiding, abetting or participating in the offering by several white females whose names are not known but who were known as and called Rita, Sojna or Sonia, and Jeannie, to commit or engage in prostitution, lewdness or assignation, in violation of Sections 796.07 and 561.29, Florida Statutes; and from about March 21, 1961, to about March 24, 1961, both dates inclusive, at his licensed place of business, he or his employee were aiding, abetting or participating in the soliciting, inducing, enticing or procuring others to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation with several white females whose names are not known but who were known as and called Rita and Sojna or Sonia, in violation of Sections 796.-07 and 561.29, Florida Statutes.’ The director then revoked the alcoholic beverage license of the petitioner at the Celebrity Club and this petition for cer-tiorari followed....

...h, and statements made to the officers by employees of petitioner on the licensed premises, when said conversations were not had or made in the presence or hearing of petitioner, are hearsay evidence and therefore not admissible in proceedings under Section 561.29 F.S.A.; and finally, that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the findings and-conclusions of the beverage director in his order revoking the alcoholic beverage license of the petitioner....

...wdness or assignation.’ Under this statute, the mere act of offering to engage in sexual intercourse for a consideration is a violation of law. No overt act is required to complete the offense. “Petitioner’s second contention is without merit. Section 561.29 F.S.A....

...' The facts in each case showed that the prohibited sales were made despite the owner’s efforts to prevent same. In each case the owner was charged with but one single violation and the beverage department’s order of suspension was overturned by the appellate court. In view of these cases, we do not construe Section 561.29(1) (a), Florida Statutes (1959), F.S.A., as requiring a liquor licensee to be an absolute insurer against violations of the law on his premises committed by or through his employees....

...nt to comply with the statutory mandate that she make reasonable inquiry to see to it that her automobile not be used for potential criminal activity. I contend that the statute before us should be interpreted in a manner similar to that placed upon Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, allowing the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to revoke or suspend a beverage license upon a showing that either the licensee or his agents have repeatedly violated the laws of the state on the licensed premises....

...ely request be afforded an opportunity to show the contrary. Central did not take advantage of the opportunity afforded it to challenge the facts gathered from the official file, therefore, it cannot be heard to complain now. Under the provisions of Section 561.29(4), Florida Statutes, the Division could have assessed a civil penalty of up to $4,000.00 or two times more than it assessed....

BOYER, Judge. By petition for review pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Administrative Procedure Act, and F.S. 561.29(7), G & B of Jacksonville, Inc....

...doing business as Out Of Sight, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, seeks review of an order of the Director of the State of Florida Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage, hereinafter referred to as respondent, by which order civil penalties were assessed against petitioner. *953 F.S. 561.29 provides, inter alia, that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is given full power and authority to revoke or suspend the license of any person holding a license under the beverage law when it is determined or found by the Divis...

...nited States. Provision is also made for imposition of civil penalties against a licensee for any violation of the Beverage Law, or any rule issued pursuant thereto, “not to exceed $1,000.00 for violations arising out of a single transaction.” F.S. 561.29(3) further provides: “ * * * If a hearing is required, the licensee shall be entitled to produce witnesses and be represented by counsel....

...a total of 30 days, viz: Ten days each for three locations. In the case sub judice the hearing officer recommended two $1,000.00 fines which the agency increased to $3,000.00, as already mentioned. The size of the penalties, the maximum allowed by F.S. 561.29(4), together with statements made by the hearing officer in several of his recommended orders, indicate, petitioner argues, that the hearing officer became prejudiced and failed to consider the issues in each case independently....

...Petitioners then sought review before the Board of Business Regulation. This proceeding was dismissed on motion. Petitioners now seek review by certiorari in this court. There is no dispute that the Division of Beverage is permitted two avenues under F.S. § 561.29, F.S.A., whereby it may suspend or revoke the license of any licensee violating any laws of the state or of the United States....

...testimony, transcript of proceedings and formal order or ruling stating the factual findings of the hearing officer. Under these circumstances, an order of the hearing officer may be characterized as judicial or quasi-judicial in nature. Under F.S. § 561.29(5) & (6), F.S.A., an alternative revocation procedure is available to the beverage department wherein the licensee and the beverage department, in order to expedite disposition of the case, may enter into a quasi-private stipulation or cont...

...arties seeking relief. See Jezek, supra, 227 So.2d at 72. The licensees herein, rather than relying upon the methods of judicial review as set out in the A.P.A., have rather closely followed the method of review set out in the beverage law in F.S. §§ 561.29(7) (a) & (b), F.S.A. They have sought review before the Board of Business Regulation as set out in F.S. § 561.29(7)(a), F.S.A. The Board granted a motion to dismiss by the Beverage Division. They have now sought certiorari here as provided in F.S. § 561.29(7)(b), F.S.A....

...of the transfers would be expedited. Perhaps it was. We have no facts before us indicating what occurred. We wish to emphasize that we have grave reservations concerning the extent to which the stipulation method of enforcement should be used. F.S. § 561.29, F.S.A., embodies only two sentences involving such summary procedure and the language therein pertains largely to the power of the department to fine licensees. F.S. §§ 561.29(5) & (6), F.S.A....

...ein were rapidly put out of the liquor business, further delay will be necessary before final disposition. *175 As we have stated previously, the petitioners are properly before this court, having complied with the requirements for review under F.S. § 561.29, F.S.A....

...McNULTY, Judge (dissenting): I must respectfully dissent. In my view the actions of the respondent of which review is sought are purely executive in nature and are not reviewable by certiorari which is a method of appellate review of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. [1] Section 561.29(5), (6), Fla....

...The Legislature in its wisdom clearly recognized the need for such an expedient in the disposition of the hundreds of such cases which surely must arise annually. Contrariwise, the majority opinion operates in net effect to compel the full knockdown, drag-out quasi-judicial proceeding contemplated by the provisions of Section 561.29(3), Fla....

...Courtemanche, Jr., Assistant General Counsel, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellee—Department of Business and Professional Regulation. MAY, MELANIE G., Associate Judge. This appeal challenges the constitutionality of section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), under the void for vagueness doctrine and allegations of arbitrary enforcement by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation....

...to impose penalties against Morey's for allowing employees to engage in lewd acts at the establishment. The trial court denied the request for relief and found that the statute passed constitutional muster. We agree with the trial court and affirm. Section 561.29(1)(a) provides: The division is given full power and authority to revoke or suspend the license of any person holding a license under the Beverage Law, when it is determined or found by the division upon sufficient cause appearing of:...

...ness. Linville found the term "chemical substance" to be vague and Cuda involved the terms "improper or illegal." These terms or phrases, while similar, are not the same as the language involved here and are not applicable. There is no question that section 561.29(1)(a) is penal in nature as it authorizes revocation of Morey's occupational license....

...al review of administrative action in the circuit court of the county where the hospital, if licensed, would be located, Section 395.14, Florida Statutes (1973); in the district court of the district where the disciplined liquor dealer did business, Section 561.29(7)(b); and in the circuit court of the circuit where the disciplined citrus dealer had his main office, Section 601.68....

...er's use of a Missouri traffic ticket and a photo identification card from a community center. The hearing officer found that the sale violated section 562.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983) and that the licensee was therefore subject to sanctions under section 561.29(1) and (3)....

...The agency issued its final order which accepted the hearing officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law but which increased the penalty to a fine of $1,000. Appellant argues on appeal that the agency erred in imposing a strict liability standard on the licensee in penalizing it pursuant to section 561.29(3)....

...Wynne, 286 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). A second issue which has concerned this court in reaching proper dispostion of this appeal is whether the "due diligence" standard of Cohen v. Schott and its progency is applicable to imposition of fines by the agency under section 561.29(3). The statutes here in issue, sections 561.29(3) and 562.11(1)(a) appear to impose strict liability standards. Yet the Florida Supreme Court and the district courts, in numerous opinions, have interpreted section 561.29(1)(a), which authorizes the agency to suspend and revoke licenses and which also contains no requirement of mens rea or fault, to require a showing of lack of due diligence by the licensee. Is that interpretation properly extended to imposition of fines pursuant to section 561.29(3)? [2] We believe that it is....

...tute. First, such an interpretation is consistent with constitutional principles. In Bach v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 378 So.2d 34, 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), Judge Ervin suggested that the rationale of Cohen v. Schott was necessary to sustain section 561.29(1)(a) against constitutional attack. While the constitutionality of section 561.29(3) is not directly before us in this appeal, we find that due process considerations favor a requirement of "fault" by the violator. [3] An additional reason for this interpretation, one advanced by the appellant, is that the term "violation" should be interpreted in a similar manner where it appears in both subsections (1)(a) and (3) of section 561.29....

...., Lash, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 411 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Cohen v. Schott, 48 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1950); Trader Jon, Inc. v. State Beverage Department, 119 So.2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), involved only a construction of Section 561.29(1), Florida Statutes, giving the Division the general power to revoke or suspend a beverage license, due to violation of the laws of the state, the United States, or any municipal regulation by the licensee or his agents, officers, servants or employees, on the premises....

...irm. NOTES [1] The hearing officer's order is not a model of clarity on this issue but it appears to impose strict liability on the licensee. The parties have so interpreted the order and we find no reason to do otherwise. [2] As originally enacted, section 561.29 authorized the agency to suspend or revoke licenses for maintenance of a nuisance, etc....

...Section 561.53(1959) allowed the agency to compromise small claims for up to five dollars per violation. This provision was repealed by the 1961 legislature in Florida Laws 61-397, which also added an earlier version of the provision now codified at section 561.29(3)....

...on sought to be licensed. Upon completion of its investigation, DABT is obligated by section 561.19 to approve or disapprove of the application. See Dade County v. Overstreet, 59 So.2d 862, 865 (Fla.1952). Consistent with sections 561.18 and 561.19, section 561.29(1) empowers DABT to suspend or revoke a license....

COBB, Judge. Appellant (Golden Dolphin) was charged by the appellee (Division) with violating various rules of the Division and statutes of Florida, thereby placing the Golden Dolphin’s beverage license in jeopardy pursuant to section 561.29, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...t certain statutory qualifications and be approved by the division. In addition, PIA remained the “licensee” for purposes of the statute and potentially subject to revocation of its license or civil penalty if Shingles misused the privilege. See § 561.29, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...revocation, but only the findings on charges 17 and 18. *564 For the reasons above expressed, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the order of the State Beverage Department is affirmed in part and quashed in part. It is so ordered. . § 561.29 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

drawee; evidence; costs; complaint form.” Under section 561.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes, the Division has the

...The writ was based on facts we shall now attempt to detail. The appellee, Sarah Thatch, owned the real property on which beer and wine were sold by her tenant, one Violet Abromatis, until November 30, 1951, under a license issued by the State Beverage Department. On August 13, 1951, a notice under Section 561.29(3), Florida Statutes 1951, and F.S.A....

for certiorari was filed, as provided for in Section 561.29(7), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., alleging that

...NOTES [1] The City also filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45). It was granted in a prior Order (Doc. 65). [2] § 843.02, Fla. Stat. [3] § 843.01, Fla. Stat. [4] Any violation of law by a beverage licensee on the licensed premises allows for revocation or suspension of a beverage license. See § 561.29(1)(a), Fla....

...le range, and the findings upon which the violations were based were supported by the record. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1978); Lash, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, 411 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); § 561.29(1)(a) and § 120.68(12), Fla.Stat....

ALLEN, Acting Chief Judge. This petition for writ of certiorari has been filed by Torch Club, Inc., a corporation, pursuant to Section 561.29(7) (b), Fla....

...m alcoholic beverages in violation of Section 562.131, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and that an employee offered to commit or engage in prostitution, lewdness or assignation with one of the agents of the Beverage Department in violation of Sections 796.07 and 561.29, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...would be through certiorari proceedings and not through collateral attack in an independent chancery proceeding. See: State Beverage Department of Florida v. Willis, 159 Fla. 698 , 32 So.2d 580 ; Vocelle v. Maleszewski, 160 Fla. 291 , 34 So.2d 436 ; § 561.29, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

for the issuance of a new license. See also, section 561.-29(l)(g). And section 561.15(2) precludes the

...State, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 403 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage, 371 So.2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and Pauline v. Lee, 147 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 156 So.2d 389 (Fla.1963). Section 561.29(1)(a), which the licensee is charged as having violated, provides: Violation by.the licensee or his or its agents, officers, servants, or employees, on the licensed premises, or elsewhere while in the scope of employment, of any of the...

...f employment. None of the counts of which the licensee was found guilty involved an agent, servant, or employee. Golden Dolphin No. 2, G & B of Jacksonville, and Pauline all involved employees of the licensee who violated a criminal law. Neither § 561.29(1)(a), nor the case law cited in the recommended order supports a finding that Jones, or any of his agents, servants, or employees were guilty of violating that section under the facts....

...or incident is not a basis for finding the existence of a nuisance or a violation of the beverage law and is not a basis for revoking a beverage license. There being no competent substantial evidence that the licensee was guilty of violating either § 561.29(l)(a) or § 561.29(l)(c), Fla.Stat., the order revoking Jones’s license is reversed and the cause is remanded for *1112 the entry of an order dismissing the administrative complaint filed against him....

...The Division adopted the hearing officer’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended penalty, and ordered that appellants’ license be revoked. Of the 11 counts which the hearing officer found to be supported by competent evidence, Count 1 alleged that appellants, through their employees, violated section 561.29(l)(c), Florida Statutes, by maintaining a public nuisance in violation of section 823.10, Florida Statutes. Count 2 alleged that appellants, through their employees, violated section 561.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes, by violating section 893.13(2)(a)5, Florida Statutes. Both Counts 1 and 2 were worded so as to allege that the violations had occurred between the dates of May 12, 1982 and October 30, 1982. The other 9 counts alleged, and the hearing officer found, single-date violations of section 561.29(l)(a) through appellants’ employees’ violations of various criminal statutes, including sale of marijuana, (section 893.13(l)(a)2; Counts 16 and 17); gambling (sections 849.01 and 849.08; Counts 14 and 15); and maintaining a place which is used for keeping or selling controlled substances (section 893.13(2)(a)5; Counts 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10). Under section 561.29(1), the Division may revoke or suspend a beverage license upon sufficient cause and any of the sections’ specified grounds. The two grounds involved in this case are section 561.29(l)(c), maintaining a nuisance on the licensed premises, and 561.29(l)(a): Violation by the licensee or his or its agents, officers, servants, or employees, on the licensed premises, or elsewhere while in the scope of employment, of any of the laws of this state or of the United States, or violation of any mun...

...ption of alcoholic beverages, or engaging in or permitting disorderly conduct on the licensed premises, or permitting another on the licensed premises to violate any of the laws of this state or of the United States.... Although a literal reading of section 561.29(l)(a) would seem to indicate that a license could be revoked or suspended whenever an employee violated the law on the licensed premises, irrespective of the personal fault of the licensee, it is well established that the licensee must...

...obacco pursuant to Section 7A-2.06(6), Florida Administrative Code. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 2. Section 561.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to revoke or suspend an alcoholic beverage license when it is shown that the licensee, or his agent or employee, while on the licensed premises, violated any law of the State of Florida....

...n the licensed premises, such as those alleged in Count I of the Notice to Show Cause. 9. On three occasions the Respondent, Thomas Olhausen a licensee, sold the controlled substance known as cocaine on the licensed premises in violation of Sections 561.29 and 893.13, Florida Statutes....

...must have been formally commissioned and have taken an oath of office as required by Article IV, Section 14, and Article XVI, Section 2, of the 1885 Florida Constitution. We agree. Florida Statutes Section 561.05 (1967), F.S.A. provides that the State Beverage Director shall be appointed by the Governor. Section 561.29 sets forth the power and authority of the Beverage Director in connection with revocation and suspension proceedings....

beverage license is found in Florida Statutes, Section 561.29(1) (a) and (b) and reads as follows: (1) The

...How *51 ever, the quarantine of the premises would not he fully executed until its full assessed time had elapsed. “The Director’s powers and duties are wholly statutory. F.S. Chapter 561 [F.S.A.]. * * * “The power of the Director to issue post-final revocation orders must he found, if at all, in F.S. 561.29, as this is the only section of Chapter 561 dealing with revocation procedures.' The statute is silent with regard to any procedure for reviving or restoring a license which has been revoked by a valid order which has become final in accordance with prescribed proceedings....

...license. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we do not conclude that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law. Of the several points petitioner raises, only one requires discussion. Petitioner contends that since section 561.29(6), Florida Statutes (1981), grants an automatic 15-day stay of a license revocation, he could not be found guilty of selling alcoholic beverages without a license during the time in which that stay was in effect. All of the acts of which petitioner was convicted occurred within 15 days of the revocation of his corporation’s license to sell alcoholic beverages. Although the 1981 version and the current codification of section 561.29(6) provide for an automatic stay in such license revocation and suspension proceedings, we conclude that section has been superseded by section 120.68(3), Florida Statutes *9 (1981), which provides that a stay in a license revocation o...

...t a certain time in appellant’s place of business he had sold and served alcoholic beverages to minors in violation of section 562.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The suspension order was reviewed by the circuit court, on common law writ of certiorari under section 561.29(4), Fla....

...One is a contention that the hearing out of which the suspension order arose should have been conducted by the director himself and not by an assistant. The other is a claim of insufficiency of the evidence to support the suspension order. The answer to the first question is found in the beverage law. Section 561.29 (3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which requires a hearing before the director may revoke or suspend a license, provides that the hearing may be conducted by an assistant designated by the director....

order of the Board of Business Regulation. Section 561.29(7) (b), Florida Statutes, provides: “Application

Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General RAB/tjw 1 Section 561.29(1)(a) and (3), F.S. 2 The "Beverage Law" consists

...pon failure to pay this fine within fifteen (15) days of rendition, a thirty (30) day suspension of the appellant’s liquor license. We reverse. The DBR served upon appellant a show cause order on March 18, 1983, alleging appellant’s violation of Section 561.29(l)(a) and Chapter 849, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...(1981), the hearing officer recommended that appellant be found not guilty of the charges alleged in the notice to show cause since, the hearing officer concluded, the evidence presented failed to establish that a violation of Chapter 849, and hence Section 561.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes, had occurred....

...rmed of the existence of the proposed pool tournament, he took steps to insure that no such tournament took place. The record does not establish that the planned tournament actually occurred. As previously noted, appellant was charged with violating Section 561.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), which grants the DBR authority to revoke or suspend a beverage license when it finds that either the licensee or its agents have violated the laws of this state on the licensed premises....

...olated, violation of Chapter 849, rather than a series of violations “committed in a persistent and recurring manner,” Lash, supra, at 278 . Although it is generally true that a holder of a beverage license may suffer revocation by the DBR under Section 561.29(1) upon a showing of simple negligence, this standard is not met where the evidence established that the violation occurred on only one occasion and that the licensee otherwise took measures to comply with applicable law....

...rnament never took place. On this record, we hold that the DBR is precluded from determining, contrary to the findings and conclusions of the hearing officer, that appellant was guilty of “simple negligence” which would constitute a violation of Section 561.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1981)....

MITCHELL, HENRY CLAY, Jr., Associate Judge. G & B seeks review of an order of the Division of Beverage finding that one of G & B’s employees violated Section 798.02, Florida Statutes (1977), thereby violating Section 561.29, Florida Statutes (1977), and suspending G & B’s liquor license....

MILLS, Acting Chief Judge. G & B seeks review of an order of the Division of Beverage finding that two of G & B’s agents, servants or employees violated Section 798.02, Florida Statutes (1977), thereby violating Section 561.29, Florida Statutes (1977), and suspending G & B’s liquor license for ten days. We affirm. Section 798.02 provides that a person who engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. Section 561.29 gives the Division authority to suspend a beverage license when the Division finds upon sufficient cause that a *138 licensee or its agents, officers, servants or employees, on the licensed premises, while in the scope of employment, has violated any law of this State....

...These price figures on the food sold would have yielded a percentage of food sales to gross revenues of about 60%. Such were the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer. In his conclusions of law he recited the power of DABT to suspend or revoke a beverage license (Section 561.29(1)(a), (b), and (e)) and to impose a civil penalty (Section 561.29(3)) for a violation of Chapter 561 or implementing rules....

...Further, we find that DABT did give adequate explanation for increasing appellant’s penalty. DABT recited those facts which support a finding that appellant failed to meet the criteria of Section 561.20(2)(a)3., which failure entitled DABT to revoke appellant’s license pursuant to 561.29 (1)....

immediate revocation of any beverage license under Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, and therefore, impaired

as given herein to the licensee pursuant to Section 561.29(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was sufficient

...On October 13, 1961, Dono-frio ceased to be an employee of petitioner. The next day, the two orders were served ■on Dorothy Donofrio as general manager ■of petitioner. Donofrio was neither listed nor fingerprinted in response to those two ■orders. Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides with respect to revocation and ■suspension of license: “(1) The director is given full ■power and authority to revoke or suspend the license of any person, firm or •corporation holding a lice...

BOYER, Judge. By petition for review pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Administrative Procedure Act, and F.S. 561.29(7), G & B of Jacksonville, Inc....

PER CURIAM. This cause brings for review by direct appeal an order of the Circuit Court of Leon County, Florida, dismissing a bill of complaint in which the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Florida Statute § 561.29, F.S.A....

...court, .and to pursue further a determination of its jurisdiction to proceed with the cause. An order entered nunc pro tunc by the trial judge advising this court whether or not in his decision he passed upon the constitutionality of Florida Statute § 561.29, F.S.A., would enable us to perform our constitution.al duty of making a determination of whether such cause should be retained here for final adjudication or should be transferred to the District Court of Appeal....

1973 (the old Administrative Procedure Act) and § 561.29, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was charged and

...State Beverage Department, Sup.Ct.Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 580 . We have concluded that the Treasure, Inc. decision is not dispositive of the issue before us. The Supreme Court in its Treasure, Inc. decision discussed the power of the beverage director under F.S. 561.29 (1967) and held that before a substitute director could be appointed, he must have been formally commissioned and taken an oath of office under the appropriate sections of the 1885 Florida Constitution. The instant case is governed by drastically different constitutional and statutory provisions. F.S. 561.29 was amended in 1969 so that the Division of Beverage rather than the beverage director now has the power to suspend or revoke licenses....