G & B OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., D/B/A CLIMAX, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF BEVERAGE, RESPONDENT
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. We reverse.
There is no competent substantial evidence in the record establishing knowledge on the part of the licensee or any responsible officer or employee thereof of the alleged unlawful conduct of the employees. See Woodbury v. State Beverage Department, 219 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969).
Accordingly, we reverse with directions to the Director of the Division of Beverage, Department of Business Regulation, to rescind the revocation of petitioner’s license.
MILLS, Acting C. J., concurs.
SMITH, J., dissents.
SMITH,, Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm. G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage, 371 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Logan Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…Ample authority exists for allowing a plea to be withdrawn; Brown v. State, supra, authorized the withdrawal of an Ashby plea entered before the date of its decision. Accord, Kjersgaard v. State, 383 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gray v. State, 381 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arnold v. State, 379 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). A defendant’s understanding that he could appeal, incorrect because of clerical error, was sufficient to provide him the oppor…
-
Hardison v. State, 385 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…o an appeal. [*739] The appellant’s plea was entered after the Brown decision. While we have remanded cases involving pre-Brown pleas with instructions that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to seek to withdraw his plea, see Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), denying rehearing, such an order is not appropriate to post-Brown pleas. The opportunity to withdraw was predicated in pr e-Brown pleas upon the notion that it would be unfair to punish a defendant for his reliance on pre-Brown ca…
-
Leisure v. State, 429 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…within which to file a motion to withdraw his plea. That motion should be granted unless the State can show that by reason of events occurring since the entry of the plea, it has been prejudiced in now being able to prove its case. Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Gainey v. State, 386 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and Gray v. State, 379 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Finally, we note that our holding in this case does not conflict with our previous decisions in Alexander v. Sta…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Woodbury v. State Bev. Dep't of Fla., 219 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- G & B OF Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, 371 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)