Petito v. Construction Industry Licensing Board

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Petito v. Construction Industry Licensing Board

99 So. 3d 552, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13718, 2012 WL 3537819

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 17, 2012

DocketNo. 1D11-5597

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 So. 3d 552 (Petito v. Construction Industry Licensing Board) 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

Petito v. Construction Industry Licensing Board, 99 So. 3d 552, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13718, 2012 WL 3537819 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss the appeal in this case for lack of standing. See Bodenstab v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, 648 So.2d 742, 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). At oral argument, the Board’s counsel affirmed that the petitioner, Robert Petito, would not be subject to discipline for any matter that has been brought to the Department’s attention to date. This avowal ameliorates Petito’s concern that the Board might use probation or other types of discipline as an impermissible condition on his license. It also buttresses our conclusion that Petito lacks standing: beyond receiving the relief he sought below (i.e., an unconditional transfer of his license) he has no basis for [553]*553apprehension that the Board will attempt to improperly impose discipline upon him.

DISMISSED.

DAVIS, LEWIS, and MAKAR, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss the appeal in this case for lack of standing. See Bodenstab v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, 648 So.2d 742, 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). At oral argument, the Board’s counsel affirmed that the petitioner, Robert Petito, would not be subject to discipline for any matter that has been brought to the Department’s attention to date. This avowal ameliorates Petito’s concern that the Board might use probation or other types of discipline as an impermissible condition on his license. It also buttresses our conclusion that Petito lacks standing: beyond receiving the relief he sought below (i.e., an unconditional transfer of his license) he has no basis for [553]*553apprehension that the Board will attempt to improperly impose discipline upon him.

DISMISSED.

DAVIS, LEWIS, and MAKAR, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 So. 3d 552, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13718, 2012 WL 3537819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petito-v-construction-industry-licensing-board-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack