Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 120.60 (2025)

Licensing.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

120.60 Licensing.—

(1) Upon receipt of a license application, an agency shall examine the application and, within 30 days after such receipt, notify the applicant of any apparent errors or omissions and request any additional information the agency is permitted by law to require. An agency may not deny a license for failure to correct an error or omission or to supply additional information unless the agency timely notified the applicant within this 30-day period. The agency may establish by rule the time period for submitting any additional information requested by the agency. For good cause shown, the agency shall grant a request for an extension of time for submitting the additional information. If the applicant believes the agency’s request for additional information is not authorized by law or rule, the agency, at the applicant’s request, shall proceed to process the application. An application is complete upon receipt of all requested information and correction of any error or omission for which the applicant was timely notified or when the time for such notification has expired. An application for a license must be approved or denied within 90 days after receipt of a completed application unless a shorter period of time for agency action is provided by law. The 90-day time period is tolled by the initiation of a proceeding under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. Any application for a license which is not approved or denied within the 90-day or shorter time period, within 15 days after conclusion of a public hearing held on the application, or within 45 days after a recommended order is submitted to the agency and the parties, whichever action and timeframe is latest and applicable, is considered approved unless the recommended order recommends that the agency deny the license. Subject to the satisfactory completion of an examination if required as a prerequisite to licensure, any license that is considered approved shall be issued and may include such reasonable conditions as are authorized by law. Any applicant for licensure seeking to claim licensure by default under this subsection shall notify the agency clerk of the licensing agency, in writing, of the intent to rely upon the default license provision of this subsection, and may not take any action based upon the default license until after receipt of such notice by the agency clerk.

(2) If an applicant seeks a license for an activity that is exempt from licensure, the agency shall notify the applicant and return any tendered application fee within 30 days after receipt of the original application.

(3) Each applicant shall be given written notice, personally or by mail, that the agency intends to grant or deny, or has granted or denied, the application for license. The notice must state with particularity the grounds or basis for the issuance or denial of the license, except when issuance is a ministerial act. Unless waived, a copy of the notice shall be delivered or mailed to each party’s attorney of record and to each person who has made a written request for notice of agency action. Each notice must inform the recipient of the basis for the agency decision, inform the recipient of any administrative hearing pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57 or judicial review pursuant to s. 120.68 which may be available, indicate the procedure that must be followed, and state the applicable time limits. The issuing agency shall certify the date the notice was mailed or delivered, and the notice and the certification must be filed with the agency clerk.

(4) When a licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license which does not automatically expire by statute, the existing license shall not expire until the application for renewal has been finally acted upon by the agency or, in case the application is denied or the terms of the license are limited, until the last day for seeking review of the agency order or a later date fixed by order of the reviewing court.

(5) No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to the entry of a final order, the agency has served, by personal service or certified mail, an administrative complaint which affords reasonable notice to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and unless the licensee has been given an adequate opportunity to request a proceeding pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57. When personal service cannot be made and the certified mail notice is returned undelivered, the agency shall cause a short, plain notice to the licensee to be published once each week for 4 consecutive weeks in a newspaper published in the county of the licensee’s last known address as it appears on the records of the agency. If no newspaper is published in that county, the notice may be published in a newspaper of general circulation in that county.

(6) If the agency finds that immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency suspension, restriction, or limitation of a license, the agency may take such action by any procedure that is fair under the circumstances if:

(a) The procedure provides at least the same procedural protection as is given by other statutes, the State Constitution, or the United States Constitution;

(b) The agency takes only that action necessary to protect the public interest under the emergency procedure; and

(c) The agency states in writing at the time of, or prior to, its action the specific facts and reasons for finding an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare and its reasons for concluding that the procedure used is fair under the circumstances. The agency’s findings of immediate danger, necessity, and procedural fairness are judicially reviewable. Summary suspension, restriction, or limitation may be ordered, but a suspension or revocation proceeding pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57 shall also be promptly instituted and acted upon.

(7) No agency shall include as a condition of approval of any license any provision that is based upon a statement, policy, or guideline of another agency unless the statement, policy, or guideline is within the jurisdiction of the other agency. The other agency shall identify for the licensing agency the specific legal authority for each such statement, policy, or guideline. The licensing agency must provide the licensee with an opportunity to challenge the condition as invalid. If the licensing agency bases a condition of approval or denial of the license upon the statement, policy, or guideline of the other agency, any party to an administrative proceeding that arises from the approval with conditions or denial of the license may require the other agency to join as a party in determining the validity of the condition.

History.—s. 1, ch. 74-310; s. 10, ch. 76-131; s. 1, ch. 77-174; ss. 6, 9, ch. 77-453; s. 57, ch. 78-95; s. 8, ch. 78-425; s. 1, ch. 79-142; s. 6, ch. 79-299; s. 2, ch. 81-180; s. 6, ch. 84-203; s. 2, ch. 84-265; s. 1, ch. 85-82; s. 14, ch. 90-51; s. 762, ch. 95-147; s. 26, ch. 96-159; s. 326, ch. 96-410; s. 12, ch. 97-176; s. 7, ch. 2003-94; ss. 4, 5, ch. 2010-279; HJR 9-A, 2010 Special Session A; s. 10, ch. 2012-212.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 181 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Bio-med Plus v. State, Dept. of Health, 915 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bio-med Plus v. State, Dept. of Health, 915 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). · cites it 8× “As we stated in Daube , Punishment for past behavior is properly the subject of an administrative complaint pursuant to section 120.60(5) wherein the licensee is afforded the opportunity to challenge the factual basis of the complaint through a section 120.”

Premier Travel Intern., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Agric. & Consum. Serv., 849 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). · cites it 8× “These consolidated cases are appeals from three immediate final orders (IFOs) issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the Department) pursuant to section 120.60, Florida Statutes, requiring Appellants to cease and desist from acting as sellers of travel…”

Sheppard v. Bd. of Dentistry, 385 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). · cites it 10× “This cause is before us on petition for review of the order of the hearing officer denying motion to dismiss a license revocation proceeding due to failure of the Board of Dentistry to comply with Florida Statutes § 120.60(5), [1] which provides: No revocation, suspension,…”

DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. v. Am. Healthcorp, 471 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). · cites it 8× “494(5), Florida Statutes (1982), required HRS to determine, in 15 working days, whether appellee's application was complete, and to issue or deny a CON within the subsequent 45 days; since HRS failed to issue or deny a CON within the appropriate time period, the CON is…”

Kaplan v. State, Dep't of Health, 45 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). · cites it 7× “Such an ESO is subject to the exacting standards of section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2009).”

Peoples Bank, Etc. v. State, Dept. of B. & F., 395 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1981). · cites it 6× “03 and section 120.60(3), as *523 amended in 1978, [1] of the Florida Statutes, and alleges that the agency improperly considered certain material without affording the appellant an opportunity to refute it.”

Solimena v. State, Dept. of Bus. Reg., 402 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). · cites it 7× “We note, however, that the Division's order informed the applicant of his right to a hearing under section 120.60(2). We find no violation of section 120.”

Legal Assistance v. Bd. of Brevard Cty., 642 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1994). · cites it 6× “If anything, the legislative history of section 120.60 favors LEAF's position because a prior version of the statute allowed extensions of existing permits upon a timely application for renewal of a license or for a new license with reference to any activity of a continuing…”

Tauber v. State Bd. of Osteopathic Med., Ex'rs, 362 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). · cites it 8× “Pursuant to Section 120.60, Florida Statutes (1977), Petitioner received by certified mail a "Notice of Emergency Hearing to Consider Emergency Suspension of License.”

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure-2017 Regular-cycle Report., 256 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2018). · cites it 4× “(1) [No Change] - 57 - (2) Review of non-finalnonfinal agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, including non-finalnonfinal action by an administrative law judge, and agency orders entered pursuant to section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes, shall be commenced by filing…”

Stock v. Dept. of Banking & Fin., 584 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). · cites it 7× “009(1) provides that an administrative complaint must be served upon the licensee pursuant to section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (now section 120.”

Heifetz v. Dept. of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). · cites it 2× “Appellant next complains that section 120.60(7), Florida Statutes (1983), regarding emergency suspension of licenses, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in this case.”

Show all 181 citing cases →

— 120.60(1) — 12 cases

Daniels v. Florida Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 401 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

State v. Fugett, 946 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Walker v. State, Dept. of Transp., 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Saddlebrook Resorts v. Wiregrass Ranch, 630 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Premier Int'l Travel, Inc. v. Bronson, 843 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

— 120.60(2) — 27 cases

DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. v. Am. Healthcorp, 471 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). “494(5), Florida Statutes (1982), required HRS to determine, in 15 working days, whether appellee's application was complete, and to issue or deny a CON within the subsequent 45 days; since HRS failed to issue or deny a CON within the appropriate time period, the CON is…”

Florida Dept. of Transp. v. JWC Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

Krakow v. Dept. of Pro. Reg., 586 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Doheny v. Grove Isle, LTD., 442 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

State, Dep't of Transp. v. Calusa Trace Dev., Corp., 571 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

— 120.60(3) — 14 cases

Symons v. State, Dept. of Banking & Fin., 490 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

Peoples Bank, Etc. v. State, Dept. of B. & F., 395 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1981). “03 and section 120.60(3), as *523 amended in 1978, [1] of the Florida Statutes, and alleges that the agency improperly considered certain material without affording the appellant an opportunity to refute it.”

Golfview Nursing Home v. STATE, AHCA, 859 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Ft. Myers Real Est. Holdings, LLC v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 53 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

State, Dep't of Transp. v. Calusa Trace Dev., Corp., 571 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

— 120.60(3)(a) — 1 case

— 120.60(3)(a)(2) — 1 case

Peoples Bank of Indian River Cnty. v. State, Dep't of Banking & Fin., 378 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

— 120.60(4) — 2 cases

Walker v. State, Dept. of Transp., 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Inland Capital Corp. v. Lewis, 362 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

— 120.60(4)(c) — 3 cases

World Bank v. Lewis, 425 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Krakow v. Dept. of Pro. Reg., 586 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

World Bank v. Lewis, 406 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

— 120.60(5) — 27 cases

Sheppard v. Bd. of Dentistry, 385 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). “This cause is before us on petition for review of the order of the hearing officer denying motion to dismiss a license revocation proceeding due to failure of the Board of Dentistry to comply with Florida Statutes § 120.60(5), [1] which provides: No revocation, suspension,…”

Solimena v. State, Dept. of Bus. Reg., 402 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). “We note, however, that the Division's order informed the applicant of his right to a hearing under section 120.60(2). We find no violation of section 120.”

Tauber v. State Bd. of Osteopathic Med., Ex'rs, 362 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). “Pursuant to Section 120.60, Florida Statutes (1977), Petitioner received by certified mail a "Notice of Emergency Hearing to Consider Emergency Suspension of License.”

Walker v. State, Dept. of Transp., 366 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

— 120.60(5)(a) — 1 case

Bank of Credit & Com. Int'l (Overseas) Ltd. v. Lewis, 570 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

— 120.60(6) — 71 cases

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure-2017 Regular-cycle Report., 256 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2018). “(1) [No Change] - 57 - (2) Review of non-finalnonfinal agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, including non-finalnonfinal action by an administrative law judge, and agency orders entered pursuant to section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes, shall be commenced by filing…”

Bio-med Plus v. State, Dept. of Health, 915 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). “As we stated in Daube , Punishment for past behavior is properly the subject of an administrative complaint pursuant to section 120.60(5) wherein the licensee is afforded the opportunity to challenge the factual basis of the complaint through a section 120.”

Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc., 780 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2000).

Broyles v. State Dept. of Health, 776 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Premier Travel Intern., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Agric. & Consum. Serv., 849 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). “These consolidated cases are appeals from three immediate final orders (IFOs) issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the Department) pursuant to section 120.60, Florida Statutes, requiring Appellants to cease and desist from acting as sellers of travel…”

— 120.60(6)(a) — 1 case

Zane Paul Webber v. State of Florida, Dept. of Bus. etc., 198 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

— 120.60(6)(b) — 9 cases

Daube v. Dep't of Health, 897 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Kaplan v. State, Dep't of Health, 45 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “Such an ESO is subject to the exacting standards of section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2009).”

Field v. State, Dept. of Health, 902 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

St. Michael's Academy v. State, Dcf, 965 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

— 120.60(6)(c) — 13 cases

Kaplan v. State, Dep't of Health, 45 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “Such an ESO is subject to the exacting standards of section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2009).”

Field v. State, Dept. of Health, 902 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Mendelsohn v. State, Dep't of Health, 68 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Rehab. Ctr. at Hollywood Hills, LLC v. State of Florida, Agency for Health etc., 250 So. 3d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

— 120.60(7) — 15 cases

Heifetz v. Dept. of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). “Appellant next complains that section 120.60(7), Florida Statutes (1983), regarding emergency suspension of licenses, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in this case.”

Lerro v. Dept. of Prof'l Reg., 388 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

Schram v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 603 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Gervais v. Div. Of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 438 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

— 120.60(8) — 10 cases

Stock v. Dept. of Banking & Fin., 584 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). “009(1) provides that an administrative complaint must be served upon the licensee pursuant to section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (now section 120.”

Allied Educ. Corp. v. State, Dept. of Educ., 573 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Grantham v. Gunter, 498 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

Polakoff v. Dept. of Ins. & Treasurer, 551 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Garcia v. Dept. of Prof'l Reg., 581 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

— 120.60(l) — 1 case

Silver Show Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. of the State, 763 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.