Mullin v. State, Dept. of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date | 10 January 1978 |
Docket Number | No. DD-93,DD-93 |
Citation | 354 So.2d 1216 |
Parties | Thomas A. MULLIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS and State of Florida, Department of Education, Respondents. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
I. Paul Mandelkern and James M. Russ, Orlando, for petitioner.
Howard R. Marsee of Pitts, Eubanks, Ross & Rumberger, Orlando, for respondents.
Having considered the briefs and arguments of the respective parties, we determine that we do not have jurisdiction over this petition for review, petition for writ of prohibition or supplemental petition for writ of prohibition. The rule nisi previously issued is discharged and the petition for review denied.
Mr. Mullin asked this court to stop the disciplinary proceeding against him, contending the applicable statute of limitations had run. We determined we had no jurisdiction. On rehearing, Mullin contends we overlooked Circuit Court of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v. Dept. of Natural Resourses, 339 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1976) and State ex rel. Division of Administration v. Oliff, 350 So.2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Those cases entertained prohibition where sovereign immunity was asserted by an agency. Mullin argues the running of the statute of limitations renders the Department without subject matter jurisdiction just as the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity.
Research reveals no Florida opinions applying prohibition where the statute of limitations allegedly has run. We do not find it appropriate. Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677, 684 (1926) stated:
"
The Department clearly had jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against Mullin. By analogy ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gordon v. Savage, 79-507
...because prohibition does not lie as a result of denial of affirmative defenses available to a party. Mullin v. Department of Administration, 354 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1217 Petitioner also contends that because the proceeding is essentially criminal in natur......
-
Thorney v. Clough, 83-521
...the statute of limitations is not jurisdictional, but is instead a period of limitation. As the first district noted in Mullin v. State, 354 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1978), Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d) specifically lists the statute of limitat......
-
Ludwig v. Glover, FF-302
...Fla.R.Med.P. is a jurisdictional period as distinguished from a limitation period. There is a difference. (See Mullin v. State, etc., 354 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).) The order of the judicial referee in the case sub judice was, therefore, ineffective to extend the jurisdictional F.S. 7......
-
Scientific Games, Inc. v. Dittler Bros., Inc.
...that a complaint was properly and timely filed within the statutory parameters) with Mullin v. State, Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings, 354 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1978) (declining to review before plenary appeal an order......