379 So. 2d 359 (1980) Michael J. SATZ, Etc., Petitioner, v. Abe PERLMUTTER, Respondent. No. 55178. Supreme Court of Florida. January 17, 1980. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm *360 Beach, and Patti Englander, Asst. States Atty., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner. David A. Hoines, Anthony N. Brimo, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, Walter G. Campbell, Jr., and Richard A. Barnett of Krupnick & Campbell, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent. SUNDBERG, Judge. This case is befo..

985 So. 2d 536 (2008) GRAHAM v. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF JACKSONVILLE. No. 1D08-2814. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. July 8, 2008. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.

23 So. 3d 119 (2009) MURPHY v. STATE. No. 2D09-2947. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. December 4, 2009. Decision Without Published Opinion Affirmed.

39 So. 3d 1268 (2010) FREEMAN v. STATE. No. 1D09-4739. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. July 15, 2010. Decision Without Published Opinion Affirmed.

The complaint herein alleges that the respondent has violated various provisions of Chapter 473, Florida Statutes, under which revocation of his certificate by the Board is authorized. The parties stipulated at the hearing that the sole issue for consideration was whether the petitioner should properly revoke respondent's reciprocal certificate as a certified public accountant because of his failure to engage in the full-time practice of public accounting for a period of three years after issuance of the certificate. The parties further stipulated that the respondent has been a full-time resident of the State of Florida for such a period but has not engaged in full-time practice of accountancy since May 1974. The Board based one of its allegations in its administrative complaint on an alleged violation of Section 473.251(l)(g), which authorizes it to revoke or suspend a certificate to practice as a certified public accountant if the licensee is "guilty of a violation of the provisions of this chapter or of any of the rules of the board." Although not specifically alleged in the administrative complaint, the Board's counsel announced at the hearing that this ground for revocation was based in part on respondent's alleged violation of Rule 21A-11.04(2), Florida Administrative Code, which purports to implement Section 473.201 concerning grounds for revocation of reciprocal certificates, such as is held by the respondent. The Hearing Officer thereupon permitted the Board to amend its complaint to allege a violation of the rule and offered the respondent the opportunity to request a continuance, if necessary, to enable him properly to defend against this charge. Respondent then contended that the rule is invalid as being in conflict with the statute. The Hearing Officer permitted him to file a separate petition under Section 120.56, seeking an administrative determination of the validity of the rule. Such a petition was thereafter filed in due course and a Final Order was issued thereon in the case of Thomas F. Luken, Petitioner, vs. State Board of Accountancy, State of Florida, Respondent, Case NO. 77-1588R, on November 15, 1977. By the aforesaid Final Order, the undersigned Hearing Officer determined that the Rule 21A-11.04(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Challenged rule was invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Respondent should be acquited of all complaints.