Chettiar v. Department of Professional Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chettiar v. Department of Professional Regulation

619 So. 2d 28, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6162, 1993 WL 191950

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1991

StatusPublished

This text of 619 So. 2d 28 (Chettiar v. Department of Professional Regulation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chettiar v. Department of Professional Regulation, 619 So. 2d 28, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6162, 1993 WL 191950 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the respondent Thi-rumalaiswamy Chettiar from a final administrative order revoking his nursing license. Finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for continuance made on the day of the hearing, see, e.g., Padgett v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Santa Rosa County, 378 So.2d 58, 62-63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 340 So.2d 1206, 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert, denied, 348 So.2d 945 (Fla.1977); Carol City Util., Inc. v. Gaines Constr. Co., 201 So.2d 242, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert, denied, 210 So.2d 221 (Fla.1968); McWhorter v. McWhorter, 122 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Fla.Admin.Code R. 221-6.017 (now 60Q-2.107), or in the failure of the hearing officer to appoint counsel for the respondent, see, e.g., Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1108 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 820, 101 S.Ct. 78, 66 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980), Woodham v. Williams, 207 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), the final order under review is, in all respects,

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the respondent Thi-rumalaiswamy Chettiar from a final administrative order revoking his nursing license. Finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for continuance made on the day of the hearing, see, e.g., Padgett v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Santa Rosa County, 378 So.2d 58, 62-63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Buckley Towers Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 340 So.2d 1206, 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert, denied, 348 So.2d 945 (Fla.1977); Carol City Util., Inc. v. Gaines Constr. Co., 201 So.2d 242, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), cert, denied, 210 So.2d 221 (Fla.1968); McWhorter v. McWhorter, 122 So.2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Fla.Admin.Code R. 221-6.017 (now 60Q-2.107), or in the failure of the hearing officer to appoint counsel for the respondent, see, e.g., Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1108 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 820, 101 S.Ct. 78, 66 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980), Woodham v. Williams, 207 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), the final order under review is, in all respects,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

619 So. 2d 28, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6162, 1993 WL 191950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chettiar-v-department-of-professional-regulation-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack