120.60
Licensing.
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
Bio-Med Plus v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH (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.”
Premier Travel Intern., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Serv. (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…”
Sheppard v. Board of Dentistry (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,…”
DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. v. American Healthcorp (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…”
Kaplan v. State, Department of Health (2010)
“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. (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.”
Solimena v. State, Dept. of Business Reg. (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.”
Legal Assistance v. Bd. of Brevard Cty. (1994)
“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 (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.”
In RE: AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE-2017 REGULAR-CYCLE REPORT. (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…”
Stock v. DEPT. OF BANKING & FINANCE (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.”
Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation (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.”
— 120.60(1) — 12 cases
State v. Fugett (2006)
— 120.60(2) — 27 cases
DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. v. American Healthcorp (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…”
Doheny v. Grove Isle, LTD. (1983)
— 120.60(3) — 14 cases
Peoples Bank, Etc. v. State, Dept. of B. & F. (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.”
— 120.60(3)(a) — 1 case
Peoples Bank, Etc. v. State, Dept. of B. & F. (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.”
— 120.60(3)(a)(2) — 1 case
— 120.60(4) — 2 cases
— 120.60(4)(c) — 3 cases
World Bank v. Lewis (1982)
World Bank v. Lewis (1981)
— 120.60(5) — 27 cases
Sheppard v. Board of Dentistry (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 Business Reg. (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 (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.”
— 120.60(5)(a) — 1 case
— 120.60(6) — 71 cases
In RE: AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE-2017 REGULAR-CYCLE REPORT. (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 (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.”
Premier Travel Intern., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Serv. (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
— 120.60(6)(b) — 9 cases
Kaplan v. State, Department of Health (2010)
“Such an ESO is subject to the exacting standards of section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2009).”
Bio-Med Plus v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH (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.”
— 120.60(6)(c) — 13 cases
Bio-Med Plus v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH (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.”
Kaplan v. State, Department of Health (2010)
“Such an ESO is subject to the exacting standards of section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2009).”
— 120.60(7) — 15 cases
Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation (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.”
— 120.60(8) — 10 cases
Stock v. DEPT. OF BANKING & FINANCE (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.”
Grantham v. Gunter (1986)
— 120.60(l) — 1 case
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.