Correction of nonwillful violation prior to hearing.

- This section may well foreclose revocation in any proceeding initiated by the Board of Examiners in Optometry when the respondent demonstrates correction of a nonwillful violation of board rules before the time of the hearing. Wall v. American Optometric Ass'n, 379 F. Supp. 175 (N.D. Ga.), aff'd, 419 U.S. 888, 95 S. Ct. 166, 42 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1974).

Function of an agency's finding pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-13-18(c)(1) that emergency action is required, unlike that of a notice, is not to inform the licensee of charges and define issues in a later proceeding. Everett v. Georgia Bd. of Dentistry, 264 Ga. 14, 441 S.E.2d 66 (1994).

Hearing and determination required before revocation of license.

- Just as there can be no massive seizure of allegedly obscene materials for destruction without a prior adversary type hearing and determination of obscenity, there can be no valid revocation of a business license for having exhibited an obscene film without such prior hearing and determination. 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 362 F. Supp. 1389 (M.D. Ga. 1972), aff'd, 482 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1044, 95 S. Ct. 2660, 45 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1975).

Intent of this section is to give a licensee a hearing, and an opportunity to be heard when the licensee can demonstrate that at the time of the alleged violation the licensee was in full compliance with the law. Hinson v. Georgia State Bd. of Dental Exmrs., 135 Ga. App. 488, 218 S.E.2d 162 (1975).

Application.

- Healthcare provider did not show that the state community health department committed an error of law in issuing a cease and desist letter directing the healthcare provider to stop operating the provider's diagnostic imaging center until the healthcare provider obtained a certificate of need; the letter of nonreviewability the healthcare provider cited was not a form of permission required by law and, thus, the revocation of the letter, which triggered the need for the certificate of need, was not subject to the notice requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-13-18(c). N. Atlanta Scan Assocs. v. Dep't of Cmty. Health, 277 Ga. App. 583, 627 S.E.2d 67 (2006).

Under this section, licensee is not entitled to two hearings. Hinson v. Georgia State Bd. of Dental Exmrs., 135 Ga. App. 488, 218 S.E.2d 162 (1975).

Service on office secretary.

- When process was served, at local office of association, upon an office secretary who had never been an officer or official member of the association, and who was not otherwise an agent or officer designated for service of process, the service of process was legally insufficient. Masters v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l, 144 Ga. App. 350, 241 S.E.2d 38 (1977).

Essential to notify driver that license suspended.

- Actual or legal notice to the defendant that license has been suspended is an essential element of driving after one's license has been suspended. Barrett v. State, 173 Ga. App. 452, 326 S.E.2d 816 (1985).

Due process did not require a hearing prior to the summary suspension when the board did make the requisite finding under O.C.G.A. § 50-13-18(c)(1), which was supported by the arrest warrant for sexual offenses committed against children and the alleged occurrence of the crimes at the same location when appellant practiced dentistry; furthermore, the proceeding to revoke appellant's license, with its accompanying procedural protections, was simultaneously instituted. Everett v. Georgia Bd. of Dentistry, 264 Ga. 14, 441 S.E.2d 66 (1994).

Cited in Hicks v. Georgia State Bd. of Pharmacy, 553 F. Supp. 314 (N.D. Ga. 1982); City Council v. Crump, 251 Ga. 594, 308 S.E.2d 180 (1983); Hale v. State, 188 Ga. App. 524, 373 S.E.2d 250 (1988); Penaranda v. Cato, 740 F. Supp. 1578 (S.D. Ga. 1990); Quigg v. Ga. Prof'l Stds. Comm'n, 344 Ga. App. 142, 809 S.E.2d 267 (2017).

Monetary compliance by one with history of noncompliance.

- Administrative agency may proceed to revoke license of licensee in conformity with the law and the fact that the licensee shows at the agency's proceedings that the licensee is momentarily complying with all lawful requirements for the retention of a license would be immaterial; the real question to be resolved by the agency's proceedings would be whether the licensee had been in noncompliance with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license at the time that the licensee is alleged to have been in noncompliance with such requirements. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-73 (see O.C.G.A. Ch. 13, T. 50).

O.C.G.A.

§ 50-13-18 concerns compliance with requirements at time of alleged noncompliance. - Opportunity to show compliance referred to by this section is the opportunity to show compliance with lawful requirements at the time the licensee is alleged to have been in noncompliance, and does not refer to a compliance at the time of a licensee receiving notice, or at the time of the institution of agency proceedings to revoke the license. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-73.

Distinctions between denials of applications for new or existing license.

- Applicant would have no course of appeal should the applicant initially be denied a license for a school or an instructor's permit; however, the denial of an existing license would require a different result since when the state confers a license to engage in a profession, trade, or occupation not inherently inimical to the public welfare, such license becomes a valuable right which cannot be denied or abridged except after due notice and a fair and impartial hearing before an unbiased tribunal. 1968 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 68-278.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Licenses and Permits, § 56 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 53 C.J.S., Licenses, § 58 et seq.

U.L.A.

- Model State Administrative Procedure Acts (1961 and 1981), 15 U.L.A.

ALR.

- Constitutionality of license statute or ordinance as affected by delegation of authority as to amount of bond of licensee, 107 A.L.R. 1506.