Roper v. Structural Pest Control Commission
| Decision Date | 30 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-274,63-274 |
| Parties | Mack A. ROPER, Perry S. Morris, Burton E. Davey, Barry E. Gillentine and Gates Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, Petitioners, v. The STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL COMMISSION of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Benjamin Agronow and Richard M. Gale, Miami, for petitioners.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Samuel Spector, Joseph Nesbitt and Philip Knight, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HORTON, JJ.
Petitioners seek review of an order of the respondent permanently revoking the petitioners' licenses, which they held pursuant to the provisions of Ch. 482, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Petitioners urge 4 points for quashing of the respondent's order of revocation, to-wit: that they were not accorded due process of law in that the hearing on the revocation was held ten (10) days after receipt of the charges; that the rules of the respondent had not been published in accordance with Ch. 120, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; that the record lacked competent, substantial evidence to support the findings of fact and conclusions of the respondent and, further that the respondent erred in permanently revoking the petitioners' licenses, in violation of the provisions of § 482.171, Fla.Stat.
An examination of the record discloses that the respondent duly served, by registered mail, a complaint against the petitioners charging violations of Ch. 482, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., with 'reasonable notice of a hearing thereon', which is all that is required by § 482.171(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The petitioners have not pointed to any other section of the statutes or in this record to any reles of respondent which would have required a fixed amount of time prior to hearing. However, although not shown in the record, this court takes judicial notice [Daoud v. Matz, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 51] of the 10 day rule of the respondent, which reads as follows:
'Notice of Hearing.--There shall be reasonable notice of at least 10 days before a hearing on suspension or revocation of a license, certificate, Identification Card and/or Special Identification Card.'
Comparing the time that the notice of hearing was received [February 20, 1963] with the date of the hearing [March 2, 1963], discloses that the petitioners were given notice in accordance with the respondent's rules, as the date of the receipt of the notice would be excluded in computing the 10 days but the date of the hearing would be included. See: 32 Fla.Jur., Time, § 9. Therefore, it is apparent, upon the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Medicine
...Quigg, 156 Fla. 189, 23 So.2d 136 (1945), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 790, 66 S.Ct. 809, 90 L.Ed. 1016 (1946); Roper v. Structural Pest Control Comm'n, 155 So.2d 846 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). We reach a different conclusion as to the punishment question. The ability of an agency to deviate from the pen......
-
Wilson v. Pest Control Commission of Fla.
...defense would have been only nine days if he would have received the notice the same day it was sent. In Roper v. Structural Pest Control Commission, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 846, the petitioner therein was served notice under F.S.A. § 482.171(1) entitled 'Revocation or suspension of certifi......