ROBERT E. HIGGINS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Robert Higgins appealed the suspension of his driver's license by the Florida Department of Public Safety based on the finding that he was incompetent to drive due to seizures. The circuit court denied his petition for restoration, and the appellate court affirmed, finding the suspension was supported by competent substantial evidence.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of Higgins' petition, finding that the license suspension was supported by competent substantial evidence and that the trial judge's conclusions were not erroneous in fact or in law.
“Incompetent — Incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely — subject to seizures.”
This was the stated reason for the Department of Public Safety's suspension of Higgins' driver's license.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHiggins' driver's license was suspended for one year effective March 27, 1961, based on the Department's determination that he was incompetent and inc…
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 Credibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant’s drivers license was suspended for one year by the Department of Public Safety of the State of Florida, effective March 27, 1961. The reason given was: “Incompetent — Incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely — subject to seizures.” The action was taken pursuant to a policy of the Department of Public Safety to withhold licenses from such persons (by successive one year suspensions) until they go two years without a seizure. Appellant petitioned the circuit court for restoration of his license.1 The court heard the cause and denied the petition upon determining there was “no showing to this court that the petition should be granted.” On his *531petition the appellant had presented evidence and arguments to dispute the administrative finding that he was incompetent to drive; representing that his seizures occurred only at night, at which time he did not drive, and then only when he neglected preventive medication. There was evidence, however, that he had failed to take medication on occasions, and that he had experienced a seizure or what appeared to be such a seizure once in the daytime while driving. The trial judge before whom the matter was heard had the duty to determine the credibility, reasonableness and weight of the evidence presented. Our examination of the record shows the decree appealed from was supported by competent substantial evidence, and that the conclusions of the trial judge were not erroneous in fact or in law.
Affirmed.