Village Zoo, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Village Zoo, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco

462 So. 2d 839, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 156, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11889

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 9, 1985

DocketNo. 84-760

StatusPublished

This text of 462 So. 2d 839 (Village Zoo, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco) 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

Village Zoo, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 462 So. 2d 839, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 156, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11889 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Although we agree with appellant that the penalty imposed upon it by the appellee seems severe, we are nevertheless compelled to affirm because of the legislature’s broad grant of discretionary authority to the agency as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1978) and Lash v. State of Florida, Dept. of Business Regulation, 411 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We reject appellant’s contention that the agency added any findings of fact inconsistent with the hearing officer’s findings.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Although we agree with appellant that the penalty imposed upon it by the appellee seems severe, we are nevertheless compelled to affirm because of the legislature’s broad grant of discretionary authority to the agency as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1978) and Lash v. State of Florida, Dept. of Business Regulation, 411 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We reject appellant’s contention that the agency added any findings of fact inconsistent with the hearing officer’s findings.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 So. 2d 839, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 156, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 11889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-zoo-inc-v-department-of-business-regulation-division-of-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack