CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...This will be a question for the Director to determine within reasonable discretion. Furthermore, the appellee's position and the lower court's conclusion that the "Skyline Restaurant" license is revoked, dead and no longer exists is contrary to the provisions of Florida Statutes, §§
561.32 and
561.58, F.S.A....
...ce of a previously revoked liquor license. The former, §
561.32, provides that the transfer of a license, when revocation or suspension proceedings have been instituted against a licensee, shall be within the discretion of the Division. The latter, §
561.58, pertains to the reissuance of a revoked license for the location of the place of business formerly operated under such revoked license....
...In response to questions pertaining to this identical license in Leon County, two Attorney Generals of the State of Florida, in separate letters addressed to the Executive Director of the Department of Business Regulation, have opined that the Beverage Department in 1962 had the power, pursuant to F.S. § 561.58, F.S.A., to reissue the license which had been revoked....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...227,
165 So. 60. Further considering the merits, we have reached the conclusion the action of the State Beverage Director under challenge is not illegal. The Circuit Court and the District Court of Appeal appear not to have considered the impact of F.S. §
561.58, F.S.A., which has special application where a license is revoked covering a landlord's premises....
...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. §
561.58, F.S.A., provides "* * * it shall be within the discretion of the director to prohibit or permit a license * * * to be issued for the location of the place of business formerly operated under such revoked license; * * *" but the prohibition of a license for the location may only extend for a maximum of two years from October first following the revocation. It appears to us that in our consideration of F.S. §
561.58, F.S.A., we should answer two questions: (1) Does F.S. §
561.58, F.S.A., violate the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection when it permits the Beverage Department to issue a so-called padlocking order without notice to the landlord, and without affording the landlord an opportuni...
...In fixing the time and place for hearings, due regard shall be had for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives. Each agency shall adopt appropriate rules of procedure for notice and hearing." It would therefore appear that, even though § 561.58, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., does not provide for a notice and hearing as required by due process of law, this deficiency is supplied by §§ 120.22 and 120.23, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., supra, and it is therefore unnecessary to strike down § 561.58, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., for failure to do so. Section 561.58, Fla....
...The Director's action afforded the landlord consideration equivalent to that which apparently would have resulted had notice and hearing been accorded the landlord prior to the quarantine. The practical effect of the action of the Beverage Director under F.S. § 561.58, F.S.A., in lifting the quarantine or prohibition against a license covering the landlord's premises for the two-year period was to authorize the landlord to consummate a new lease for the premises so the new lessee could operate the package store therein....
...Section
561.32, F.S.A., authorizes such transfers although revocation or suspension proceedings have been instituted against a licensee, the same being within the sound discretion of the Director. In the light of the wide administrative discretion confided in the Director by F.S. Sections
561.32 and
561.58, F.S.A., and other provisions of the State Beverage Laws, we cannot in the context in which we feel constrained to view this case, agree with the decision below that the revocation of the license was irrevocably placed beyond recall or modification....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...mitted such padlocking order without providing a hearing, he was nevertheless entitled to such hearing under F.S. Sections 120.22 and 120.23, F.S.A., the Administrative Procedure Act, commenting that "[i]t would therefore appear that, even though § 561.58 Fla. Stat., F.S.A., does not provide for a notice and hearing as required by due process of law, this deficiency is supplied by §§ 120.22 and 120.23, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., supra, and it is therefore unnecessary to strike down § 561.58, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., for failure to do so. Section 561.58, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12631
...Thereafter, without an opportunity to review the complete record, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco entered a final order which provided that “respondent’s [appellant] alcoholic beverage license No. 16-637S, Series 4-COP, be revoked with prejudice as provided in Section 561.58, Florida Statutes, for multiple violations of the Beverage Law.” Appellant seeks reversal of the final order because the agency has increased the penalty recommended by the hearing officer from simple revocation to “revocation with...
...ce as provided in Section 561.-58, Florida Statutes” without reviewing the complete record, contrary to the provisions *1150 of section
120.57(l)(b)9, Florida Statutes (1983). If revocation of appellant’s license “with prejudice as provided in Section
561.58, Florida Statutes,” constitutes an increase in the penalty of revocation recommended by the hearing officer, then appellant’s point appears well taken. That the addition of such language does increase the penalty seems clear from the wording of section
561.58, Florida Statutes (1983), which provides: When a license is revoked by the division-it may prohibit or permit a license to be issued for the location of the place of business formerly operated under such revoked license....
...As entered, the final order may well be construed to allow the agency to prohibit the use of the premises for the sale of intoxicating beverages for a period up to two years — a much more onerous penalty. Accordingly, the language “with prejudice as provided in Section 561.58, Florida Statutes,” is stricken from the final order under review, and as so modified the final order is affirmed....
