G. H. EDWARDS D/B/A BILL'S BAIT & TACKLE SHOP, PETITIONER,
v.
DIVISION OF BEVERAGE OF THE BOARD OF BUSINESS REGULATIONS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
A bait and tackle shop owner challenged a $250 civil penalty for illegally selling malt beverages, arguing the Director of the Division of Beverage failed to provide adequate findings of fact to support the penalty. The court held that administrative agencies must issue detailed written findings of fact based on evidence, not mere general conclusions, and remanded for proper findings.
The Director's action was quashed because the findings of fact were insufficient as a matter of law. Administrative agencies must issue final orders that are reduced to writing, contain specific findings of fact based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and specifically state which charges are sustained.
[1] An administrative agency's final order must contain specific findings of fact based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing.
[2] A general finding of guilt without specific factual findings is insufficient to satisfy due process and statutory requirements for administrative agency actions.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The foregoing recitation is, to say the least, far short of 'findings of fact' contemplated by the statutory provision.”
Court's finding that the examiner's single paragraph statement was inadequate as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 6, 1971, malt beverages were allegedly sold at petitioner's bait and tackle shop at a time when such sales were prohibited by law. A hearing e…
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 Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for writ of certiorari,1 petitioner challenges an order entered by respondent assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 against petitioner.
The sole question posed by petitioner that we consider to be of import is: did the Director of the Division of Beverage have before him competent, substantial evidence to support his findings and judgment ?
Pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act,2 the Director elected to use a hearing examiner to resolve the charges alleged against petitioner. The examiner in rendering what is termed “Findings of Fact and Recommendation” in a single paragraph stated:
“Testimony and evidence in this case revealed that malt beverages were sold on June 6, 1971, at a time when such sales were prohibited.”
The foregoing recitation is, to say the least, far short of “findings of fact” contemplated by the statutory provision. The order entered by the Director adopted the examiner’s “Findings of Fact and Recommendations” and found petitioner guilty.
In Powell v. Board of Public Instruction of Levy Co.,3 this Court specifically held:
“It has been held that a final order of a county school board terminating a teacher’s contract of employment which is couched in such general language as to amount to nothing more than a Verdict of guilty as charged’ is insufficient. Due process as well as the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act dictates that the agency’s final action be reduced to writing, contain findings of facts based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, and specifically state the charges which the agency finds to have been sustained. Such was the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in Hickey v. Wells [91 So.2d 206, (Fla.)]. The reason for such rule was stated by the Supreme Court in Hickey to be as follows :
‘The reasons have to do with facilitating judicial review, avoiding judicial usurpation of administrative functions, assuring more careful administrative consideration, helping parties plan their cases for rehearings and judicial review, and keeping agencies within their jurisdiction.’ (Emphasis supplied.)”
The action of respondent Director' is quashed and the cause remanded with directions that an appropriate final order be entered which shall contain specific findings of fact based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Powell v. The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Levy Cnty., 229 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)
- Hickey v. Reeves F. Wells, 91 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1956)