Eubanks v. Pest Control Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eubanks v. Pest Control Commission

192 So. 2d 333, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4638

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 29, 1966

DocketNo. I-149

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 So. 2d 333 (Eubanks v. Pest Control Commission) 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

Eubanks v. Pest Control Commission, 192 So. 2d 333, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4638 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was duly charged and found guilty of violating certain sections of the Pest Control Act, F.S. Chapter 482, F.S.A. Consequent upon this finding the Pest Control Certificate and Thermal Aerosol Certificate theretofore issued to petitioner were revoked, and he was placed on probation for a period of two years with respect to his pest control certificate so that he might continue to operate-his business under that certificate subject to the conditions of probation.

Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of the order of revocation contending that the findings of respondent are not supported by competent and substantial evidence; that the order of revocation constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and a violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process in that in the proceedings which culminated in the order here assaulted respondent acted in the combined capacity of grand jury, prosecutor, judge, and trial jury. Petitioner also contends that his constitutional rights were further impinged by the assertion that the severity of the penalty imposed upon him is unwarranted both by the nature of the offense and the extent of the violation of which he was found guilty, evidencing such bias and prejudice on the part of respondent as to constitute an abuse of discretion.

We have carefully examined the record of the proceedings which resulted in rendition of the order here reviewed, and considered the contentions of petitioner and the authorities cited in support thereof. After such consideration we have concluded that petitioner’s position on all points raised by him lacks support in the record, and is not sustained by the authorities on which he relies. Certiorari is accordingly denied.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SACK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was duly charged and found guilty of violating certain sections of the Pest Control Act, F.S. Chapter 482, F.S.A. Consequent upon this finding the Pest Control Certificate and Thermal Aerosol Certificate theretofore issued to petitioner were revoked, and he was placed on probation for a period of two years with respect to his pest control certificate so that he might continue to operate-his business under that certificate subject to the conditions of probation.

Petitioner seeks review by certiorari of the order of revocation contending that the findings of respondent are not supported by competent and substantial evidence; that the order of revocation constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and a violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process in that in the proceedings which culminated in the order here assaulted respondent acted in the combined capacity of grand jury, prosecutor, judge, and trial jury. Petitioner also contends that his constitutional rights were further impinged by the assertion that the severity of the penalty imposed upon him is unwarranted both by the nature of the offense and the extent of the violation of which he was found guilty, evidencing such bias and prejudice on the part of respondent as to constitute an abuse of discretion.

We have carefully examined the record of the proceedings which resulted in rendition of the order here reviewed, and considered the contentions of petitioner and the authorities cited in support thereof. After such consideration we have concluded that petitioner’s position on all points raised by him lacks support in the record, and is not sustained by the authorities on which he relies. Certiorari is accordingly denied.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SACK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 So. 2d 333, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eubanks-v-pest-control-commission-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack