M. CARL NEST, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the agency abused its discretion and the appellant is entitled to attorney fees for all proceedings in the prior case.
This case concerns the effect of a prior appellate order granting attorney fees. The agency abused its discretion from the inception of the proceeding…
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 Administrative Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, following remand after a previous appeal. Nest v. Department of Professional Regulation, 490 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). This case questions the effect of this court’s order dated June 13, 1986, granting appellant’s motion for attorney fees in the prior appeal.
A review of the previous opinion of this court and the record upon which it is based, as well as the record and briefs in the instant case, establishes that the agency abused its discretion from the inception of the proceedings below. We, therefore, find that appellant is entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to Section 120.-57(l)(b)9, Florida Statutes (1985), for all proceedings in the prior case.
Accordingly, the case is remanded with directions that the agency award reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred during all stages of the proceedings below prior to appeal. By separate order directing a hearing before the Department of Administration, this court also awards attorney fees for services on appeal.
BOOTH, THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Page v. Valentine, 552 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…idered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. The town contends that the state trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over civil rights actions. However, this court addressed the same issue in City of Riviera Beach v. Langevin, 522 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. dismissed, Darden v. Langevin, 536 So. 2d 243 (Fla.1988), and clearly held that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. See also Southern Alliance Corp. v. City of Winter Haven, 505 So…
-
Town OF Lake Clarke Shores v. Page, 569 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1990)…issed the action against the Town holding that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over § 1983 actions due to Florida’s sovereign immunity doctrine. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, relying on City of Riviera Beach v. Langevin, 522 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), review dismissed, 536 So. 2d 243 (Fla.1988), and Southern Alliance Corp. v. City of Winter Haven, 505 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We agree with the court below that state trial courts do have subject matter jurisdiction over…
-
Feimster-Peterson, Inc. v. Fla. A & M Univ., 613 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…itle it to recover fees and costs in prosecuting the matter below. Courtenay v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 581 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Nest v. Department of Professional Regulation, 490 So. 2d 987, appeal after remand, 522 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We agree and award fees and costs incurred in the proceedings below.1 See Baxter v. Florida Career Service Commission, 380 So. 2d 1044, 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Accordingly, the order is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and…
Authorities Cited
- M. Carl Nest, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 490 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)