RIDGEWOOD PROPERTIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, APPELLEE
RIDGEWOOD PROPERTIES, INC., APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, APPELLEE
548 So. 2d 1165
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1989)
Caution
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final order in all respects. However, even though it is not prohibited by the Administrative Procedures Act, we believe it is at least not good policy for the Department Secretary to appear as a witness when the same Secretary is the one who later enters the final order. Judging should be separated from functions that are incompatible with judging and the legislature may want to address this. We certify to the Supreme Court as a question of great public importance:
IS IT A VIOLATION OF A PARTY'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FOR THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT TO APPEAR AS AN EXPERT WITNESS WHEN THAT SAME DEPARTMENT HEAD LATER ENTERS THE FINAL ORDER IN THE CASE?
SHIVERS, C.J., and JOANOS, J., concur. ERVIN, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ridgewood Props., Inc. v. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs, 562 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1990)…GRIMES, Justice. Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, we review Ridgewood Properties, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, 548 So. 2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), in order to answer the following question that the district court certified as being of great public importance: Is it a violation of a party’s due process rights in an administrative hearing for the head of a department…
-
Johnie W. Wallace v. State, 557 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…hough not sealed or locked, cosmetic kit in the vehicle. This court has recently held on similar facts that a search of closed containers exceeds the scope of a general consent. State v. Abrams, 548 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) and State v. Neeley, 548 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying the suppression of the cocaine found in Appellant’s vehicle. As we did in Abrams and Neeley, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: IF A MOTOR VEHICL…
-
Jacobs v. State, 733 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…certified the same question.1 See Wallace v. State, 557 So. 2d 212, 213-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that the police exceeded the scope of consent to “look around” a vehicle by looking inside a ladies’ cosmetic kit found therein); State v. Neeley, 548 So. 2d 1165, 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (codefendant of Abrams). The supreme court has not answered the certified question. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Jacobs argued that under Abrams, the deputies exceeded the scope of consent by opening closed con…