Opinion

State, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy v. Rampell

  • 589 So. 2d 1352
  • 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10150
  • 1991 WL 205842
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Filed
Oct 16, 1991
Status
Published
Author
Stone
On the bench
Polen, Stone, Warner
Cited by
3 cases

The opinion

STONE, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in part I of the majority opinion. I would also reverse the trial court finding that section 473.317(1), Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional, and accordingly dissent. I cannot conclude that a prohibition against competitive bidding, in the limited circumstance of attested statements, fails to meet the Central Hudson standards.

In my judgment, the statutory scheme advances a valid government interest sufficiently limited and tailored to address the goal of protecting third parties, such as stockholders, investors, guarantors, creditors, and various government entities, having no alternative to reliance on the integrity and independence of the attesting auditor. I recognize that the record in this case is not as strongly supportive of the need for this legislative solution as might have been expected. Nevertheless, I cannot conclude that the legislature could not validly determine that this was a necessary part of an overall scheme to protect the public.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.