STATE OF FLORIDA AND STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, APPELLANTS,
v.
BERNARD BROWNSTEIN, 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 State of Florida appealed a circuit court's decision to grant certiorari and temporarily reinstate a driver's suspended license. The court reversed, finding that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles acted within its jurisdiction and followed the essential requirements of law in revoking the driver's privileges as a habitual traffic offender.
The circuit court erred in granting certiorari. The Department acted within its jurisdiction and complied with all essential requirements of law in revoking Brownstein's driving privileges and denying reinstatement.
[1] A circuit court may grant a writ of certiorari to review an administrative agency's decision only if the agency acted without jurisdiction or failed to follow the essenti…
[2] A petition for certiorari may be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
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 sole question is whether the circuit court erred in granting the writ of certiorari in the absence of the record showing that the Department acted without jurisdiction or failed to follow the essential requirements of law when it revoked Brownstein's driving privileges and denied reinstatement of such privileges.”
Establishes the standard for certiorari review—the administrative action must be shown to be without jurisdiction or in violation of essential legal requirements.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 1972, Brownstein's driving privileges were suspended by the Department under Florida law. He filed for certiorari review, but his petition was …
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 Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
[*145] PER CURIAM.
Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, appeals a circuit court order granting certiorari, thereby temporarily reinstating Bernard Brownstein’s driving privileges, which had been suspended.
The sole question is whether the circuit court erred in granting the writ of certiorari in the absence of the record showing that the Department acted without jurisdiction or failed to follow the essential requirements of law when it revoked Brownstein’s driving privileges and denied reinstatement of such privileges. We reverse.
In May, 1972, Brownstein’s driving privileges were suspended by the Department as authorized by Section 322.27, Florida Statutes. Shortly thereafter, he filed a petition for certiorari in the circuit court seeking review of his suspension. In 1974, his petition was dismissed by the circuit court pursuant to Rule 1.420(e), Fla.R.Civ.P., for lack of prosecution.
Between 1972 and 1974, Brownstein continued his bad driving habits and accumulated additional driving convictions while driving his car during the revocation period. The Department entered an order in September, 1974, revoking Brownstein’s driving privileges for a period of five (5) years as an habitual offender, as authorized under Section 322.27(5), supra. Brownstein then requested and received an administrative hearing from the Department seeking reinstatement of his driving privileges. In July, 1976, after hearing, his petition was denied. Brownstein then filed his petition for certiorari, the order on which is here on review.
Brownstein’s petition for certiorari in the circuit court alleges that Sections 322.264, 322.27(5) and (6), and 322.271, Florida Statutes, known as the Florida habitual traffic offender act, are unconstitutional. The circuit court in its order granting certiorari, did not pass on the constitutionality of these statutes, but simply granted temporary driving privileges for working purposes for ten (10) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
The habitual traffic offender act was held to be constitutional in Zarsky v. State, 300 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1974); Abraham v. State, 301 So. 2d 11 (Fla.1974).
Viewing the entire record, we conclude that the Department did not act without jurisdiction or depart from essential requirements of law.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zarsky v. State of Fla. & State of Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 300 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 1974)
- Abraham v. State of Fla. & State Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 301 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1974)