Gans v. State, Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gans v. State, Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation

390 So. 2d 107, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18087

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 1980

DocketNo. 79-186

StatusPublished

This text of 390 So. 2d 107 (Gans v. State, Department of Professional & Occupational 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

Gans v. State, Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation, 390 So. 2d 107, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18087 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The administrative order under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the standard of proof employed by the hearing examiner in reaching the findings of fact in this cause was not one of preponderance of the evidence, as both parties to this appeal have mistakenly assumed, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to determine whether the utilization of such a standard would in the abstract, constitute reversible error, as urged by appellant, it being abundantly clear that such an alleged error did not occur in this case, Cottrell v. Amerkan, 160 Fla. 390, 35 So.2d 383, 384 (1948) (court syllabus no. 1); 3 Fla.Jur.2d “Appellate Review” § 286 (1978); and (b) the excessive penalty point raised by the appellant herein has no merit. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1979).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The administrative order under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the standard of proof employed by the hearing examiner in reaching the findings of fact in this cause was not one of preponderance of the evidence, as both parties to this appeal have mistakenly assumed, and, accordingly, we have no occasion to determine whether the utilization of such a standard would in the abstract, constitute reversible error, as urged by appellant, it being abundantly clear that such an alleged error did not occur in this case, Cottrell v. Amerkan, 160 Fla. 390, 35 So.2d 383, 384 (1948) (court syllabus no. 1); 3 Fla.Jur.2d “Appellate Review” § 286 (1978); and (b) the excessive penalty point raised by the appellant herein has no merit. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1979).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 So. 2d 107, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gans-v-state-department-of-professional-occupational-regulation-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack