civil penalty bar in Florida

2012See City of Miami v. Valdez, 847 So.2d 1005, 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“[W]hen a law expressly describes a particular situation where something should apply [here, non-compliance with a civil penalty], an inference must be drawn that what is not included by specific reference [here, failure to appear] was intended to be omitted or excluded.”); see also State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211, 219 (Fla.2007) (“Under the canon of statutory construction expres-sio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.”).

2012See City of Miami v. Valdez, 847 So.2d 1005, 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“[W]hen a law expressly describes a particular situation where something should apply [here, noncompliance with a civil penalty], an inference must be drawn that what is not included by specific reference [here, failure to appear] was intended to be omitted or excluded.”); see also State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211, 219 (Fla.2007) (“Under the canon of statutory construction expressio uni-us est exclusio alterius, the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.”).

2012See City of Miami v. Valdez, 847 So.2d 1005, 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“[W]hen a law expressly describes a particular situation where something should apply [here, non-compliance with a civil penalty], an inference must be drawn that what is not included by specific reference [here, failure to appear] was intended to be omitted or excluded.”); see also State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211, 219 (Fla.2007) (“Under the canon of statutory construction expres-sio unius est exclusio alterius, the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.”).

2012See City of Miami v. Valdez, 847 So.2d 1005, 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“[W]hen a law expressly describes a particular situation where something should apply [here, noncompliance with a civil penalty], an inference must be drawn that what is not included by specific reference [here, failure to appear] was intended to be omitted or excluded.”); see also State v. Hearns, 961 So.2d 211, 219 (Fla.2007) (“Under the canon of statutory construction expressio uni-us est exclusio alterius, the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.”).

1985See, Broward County v. Plantation Imports, Inc., 419 So.2d 1145 (4 D.C.A.Fla., 1982), expressly approving the conclusion reached in AGO 79-109.

1983Compare, AGO 79-109 concluding that a charter county does not have the authority to enact an ordinance providing for the imposition of civil penalties by county agencies or purporting to authorize a county consumer protection board to impose a civil penalty for violation of that board's cease and desist orders; and see, Broward County v. Plantation Imports, Inc., 419 So.2d 1145 (4 D.C.A.

2014See, e.g., State v. Bowling, 712 So.2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that under the analysis in Hudson, revocation of contractor’s license was a civil sanction and did not bar a criminal prosecution for fraud in violation of double jeopardy); Borrego v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 675 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that administrative suspension of doctor’s medical license following a criminal fraud conviction did not violate double jeopardy).