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
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 9, 1985·No. No. 84-760·Published

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

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).

462 So. 2d 839 (Village Zoo, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lash, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF BUSINESS REG.
411 So. 2d 276 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COM'N v. Webb
367 So. 2d 201 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)