Legal Opinion · Dissent

Carter v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 26, 1993No. 89-2860Published

1DissentZehmer, Judge

I do not agree that the appealed order should be affirmed. I conclude that the inordinate delays and multiple statutory time limit violations by the Department of Professional Regulation and the Board of Optometry require reversal and remand with directions to dismiss the charges. I do not agree with the majority opinion that Appellant was required to show actual prejudice under the test enunciated by the supreme court in Department of Business Regulation v. Hyman, 417 So.2d 671 (Fla.1982), and that such test should be applied to the facts of this case. I do agree, in view of the majority’s…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Sharer v. Hotel Corporation of AmericaSupreme Court of Florida · 1962
  2. Appeal of PlantierSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1985
  3. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REG., ETC. v. HymanSupreme Court of Florida · 1982
  4. Ford v. Bay County School BoardDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970
  5. G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, Division of BeverageDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API