Adams v. Sutton
| Decision Date | 05 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 36913,36913 |
| Parties | Tom ADAMS, as Secretary of State of the State of Florida, et al., Appellants, v. Frank SUTTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Robert A. Chastain, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.
Milton E. Grusmark and Natalie Baskin, Miami Beach, for appellees.
Appellant in this case controverts a declaratory decree of the circuit court holding the following statute invalid under Sec. 1, 13, or 15, Decl. of Rights, Sec. 1, Art. VI, Fla.Const., F.S.A., or Amend. 14, U.S.Const.
'(b) No person holding a license for the sale of intoxicating beverages, nor any member of an unincorporated association holding such a license, nor any officer or director of a corporation holding such a license, shall make, directly or indirectly, any contribution of any nature to any political party or to any candidate for nomination for, or election to, any political office in the state; Provided however that these prohibitions shall not apply to members of country clubs, fraternal, social, and cultural organizations.' (e.s) F.S. Sec. 99.161(1)(b), F.S.A.
The decree states:
This statute, prohibiting political contributions by liquor licensees, was designed to apply both to individual licensees and to those affiliated with group licensees, either unincorporated associations or corporate license holders. The amendment condemned by the decree in this case provides 'these prohibitions shall not apply to members of' certain organizations of a fraternal nature. This language, in our opinion, simply excludes those organizations from the group licensees covered by the act, and prevents application of its prohibitions against contributions on the basis of affiliation with such licensees. We do not overlook the contention that the amendment might be literally construed, out of context, to provide that members of fraternal, social and cultural organizations shall be excluded from the prohibition against contributions, regardless of their status otherwise as individual or affiliate liquor licensees. Certainly this result was not intended and does not follow from our construction of the proviso, which by 'these prohibitions' refers to prohibitions against contributions by affiliates of organization licensees.
Thus construed, we think the amendment must be regarded as based on inherent distinctions between the specified organizations and others for which beverage licenses might serve a different purpose. We are presented with no evidence, argument or authority which would negate the existence of a reasonable relationship between the purpose of the act and the classes excluded. So far as plaintiff based his attack on alleged discrimination between liquor licensees and other business endeavors, the situation is one governed by principles well stated in an earlier opinion of this Court recognizing that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lieberman v. Marshall
...from public necessity. Smith v. Ervin, 64 So.2d 166 (Fla.1953); State ex rel. Nicholas v. Headley, 48 So.2d 80 (Fla.1950); Adams v. Sutton, 212 So.2d 1 (Fla.1968); Ex Parte Hawthorne, 156 So. 619 (Fla.1934); Satan Fraternity et al. v. Board of Public Instruction for Dade County et al., 156 ......
-
State v. Mayhew, 43575
...from public necessity. Smith v. Ervin, 64 So.2d 166 (Fla.1953); State ex rel. Nicholas v. Headley, 48 So.2d 80 (Fla.1950); Adams v. Sutton, 212 So.2d 1 (Fla.1968); Ex Parte Hawthorne, 116 Fla. 608, 156 So. 619 (1934); Satan Fraternity et al. v. Board of Public Instruction for Dade County et......
-
Barnes v. B.K. Credit Service, Inc.
...legislative power, we must recall that it is not our prerogative "to explore the wisdom or advisability of the enactment." Adams v. Sutton, 212 So.2d 1 (Fla.1968). As Justice Terrell observed forty years ago, "Courts are never permitted to strike down an act of the Legislature because it fa......
-
Stewart v. Green
...of a reasonable relationship between the purpose of the act and the class included, it must be found to be constitutional. Adams v. Sutton, 212 So.2d 1 (Fla.1968), App. dismissed 393 U.S. 404, 89 S.Ct. 681, 21 L.Ed.2d 630, reh. den. 393 U.S. 1124, 89 S.Ct. 988, 22 L.Ed.2d 132 and Daniels v.......