Hays v. State Dept. of Business Regulation, Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, PARI-MUTUEL
| Decision Date | 03 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-410,PARI-MUTUEL,80-410 |
| Citation | 418 So.2d 331 |
| Parties | Thomas E. HAYS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OFWAGERING, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Levine & Green and Bruce David Green, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
David M. Maloney, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Hays appeals from an order by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Division) entered on February 20, 1980 declaring him ineligible for licensing in any further capacity and imposing a $200 fine.
The order appealed from arose out of the following factual situation. On November 21, 1978, "Gently Noble," a thoroughbred racehorse owned by Hays won the first place in a race at Calder Race Course and received the purse of $4,500. Subsequently, it was determined that the horse had raced with the narcotic "fentanyl" in its system. On August 7, 1979, an order was issued by the Division requiring Hays to return the purse monies in accordance with the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 7E-1.06(13) [purse redistribution rule]. The order allowed him forty-five days to comply, which Hays failed to do.
As a result of Hays' noncompliance, the Stewards issued a ruling finding Hays in violation of Rule 7E-1.06(13), suspended his license, and referred the case to the Division with a recommendation that Hays' license be revoked. By order of February 20, 1980, the Division found Hays in violation of Rule 7E-1.06(13) and the order of August 7, 1979, in which he was allowed forty-five days to return the purse monies. He was declared ineligible for licensing and a $200 fine was imposed.
The question presented is whether the Division has the legislative authority to enter the order of February 20, 1980 revoking Hays' license and imposing a $200 fine.
The Division points to Section 550.10(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), as the statutory authorization for declaring Hays ineligible for licensing in any further capacity. That statute provides:
The Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering may deny or revoke any license where the holder thereof has violated the rules and regulations of the division governing the conduct of persons connected with the racetracks.
Hays' response is that this statute does not empower the Division to declare him ineligible for licensing for violation of an order. We agree. However, Hays concedes that his license was also revoked for violation of the purse redistribution rule, but contends that the unconstitutionality of the underlying rule precludes the application of Section 550.10(4)(b), supra. 1
Since it is undisputed that Hays did not seek review of the August 7, 1979 order at any time prior to this appeal, the issue is whether that order is res judicata of the question of the constitutionality of the purse redistribution rule. We answer in the affirmative.
The doctrine of administrative res judicata is firmly entrenched in Florida. Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Company, 410 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Rubin v. Sanford, 168 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 180 So.2d 331 (Fla.1965). While it is true that an administrative agency lacks jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of its own action, Gulf Pines Memorial Park, Inc. v. Oaklawn Memorial Park, Inc., 361 So.2d 695, 699 (Fla.1978), there was no impediment to Hays in filing a petition for review with this court pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (1979); Rice v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 386 So.2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). All constitutional issues (including due process) which may have been raised on direct appeal are res judicata in a collateral attack unless those issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burney v. Polk Community College
...Fund, 427 So.2d 153, 157-58 (Fla.1982); Albrecht v. State, 407 So.2d 210, 211 (Fla. 2d D.C.A.1981); Hays v. State Department of Business Regulation, 418 So.2d 331, 332 (Fla. 3d D.C.A.1982). Since a Florida court would grant res judicata preclusive effect to all issues, including that of the......
-
Hyman v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering
...Sec. 550.241(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981).3 The same issue was raised but not ruled upon in Hays v. State, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 418 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), because, unlike Hyman, the appellant did not timely challenge the order requiring redi......
-
Schneeman v. State, Dept. of Labor and Industry
...(1983), 204 Mont. 131, 135-136, 664 P.2d 316, 318, especially the constitutionality of its own actions, Hays v. State Dept. of Business Reg. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982), 418 So.2d 331, 332. However, we have stated that "where the statutes provide for judicial review of a particular order made or......
-
Talmadge v. School Bd. of Dade County, 95-3184
...Comm'rs, 642 So.2d 1081 (Fla.1994); Thomson v. Dep't of Envtl. Regulation, 511 So.2d 989 (Fla.1987); Hays v. State Dep't of Business Regulation, 418 So.2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). ...