Opinion ID: 1729479
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The decision of the District Court of Appeal simply states Certiorari Denied. Petitioner argues that it was on the authority of the decision of this Court in Headley v. Baron, 228 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1969). [1] But, he asserts, Headley should be prospective only and, since Lurie, the petitioner here, was granted immunity from criminal prosecution for receiving a stolen automobile before the decision in Headley, [which held such immunity did not protect one from administrative disciplinary proceedings] that Headley [2] was not controlling. Petitioner's argument on this point, taken from his original brief, states The general rule is that the overruling of a decision is ordinarily retrospective as well as prospective in application, and makes the law at the time of the overruled decision as it is declared to be in the overruling decision. An exception to this general rule is, however, that an overruling decision cannot operate retrospectively so as to impair the obligations of contracts entered into or injuriously affect vested rights acquired in reliance on the overruled decision. 21 C.J.S. Courts § 194b. (Emphasis added) In other words, that Lurie acquired a vested right under Seymour to be immune from disciplinary proceedings by the respondent board for unethical conduct arising out of the criminal acts for which he was granted immunity from prosecution in the criminal proceedings. Such argument is obviously false for the simple reason that the right to practice dentistry  as well as medicine or law or other professions that are publicly licensed and regulated  is not a vested right as used in the cases. [3] Therefore, I find no vestige of conflict to support jurisdiction. Moreover, it seems to me ironical that this Court could overrule its previous decision  on the basis of which the District Court admittedly decided the case under review  and then hold that the District Court's decision conflicted with a previous decision of this Court on the same point of law. And yet, that is exactly what has been done here.