City of Miami v. Jiminez, 60-519
| Decision Date | 15 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 60-519,60-519 |
| Citation | 130 So.2d 109 |
| Parties | CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Libia JIMINEZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward J. Fitzpatrick, Acting City Atty., and S. R. Sterbenz, Asst. City Atty., Miami, for appellant.
Garber & Chadroff, Miami, for appellee.
The City of Miami appeals a final declaratory decree which declares unconstitutional and enjoins the enforcement of the following city ordinance, which is section 4-10 of the Code of the City of Miami:
The final decree appealed is in part as follows:
'Ordered, adjudged and decreed that Section 4-10 of the City of Miami Code be, and the same is hereby declared wholly unconstitutional and without force and effect of law, for reason that said ordinance is so loosely or broadly drawn as to bring within its scope matters which are not properly subject to police regulations and prohibitions, and would, by its very language, in its enforcement apply to situations not connected with a question of public health, welfare, or morals, thereby being an improper, unreasonable, and arbitrary exercise of the police power by the defendants herein; and it is further * * *.'
The municipal ability to legislate, that is to limit individual rights is directly proportional to the strength of the danger to the public. This court will take judicial notice of the fact that the frequency of immoral acts in connection with the operation of drinking establishments is such that they often constitute a grave threat to the public welfare and municipal life. It follows that the regulation of the contact between female employees and the public in drinking establishments is a proper matter of municipal legislation. It requires very little thought to recognize that this is a difficult field for the exercise of police power. Moreover, those who operate such establishments do so under a license granted as a privilege by the State. If the rights of these licensees and their employees are sometimes necessarily abridged in order to properly regulate these licensees, it is an unfortunate but necessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Miami Springs v. J.J.T., Inc.
...power, Nelson v. State ex rel. Gross, 157 Fla. 412, 26 So.2d 60 (1946) (ordinance forbidding female bartenders); City of Miami v. Jiminez, 130 So.2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (ordinance prohibiting female bar employees from accepting drinks paid for by customers); Grand Faloon Tavern, Inc. v. ......
-
City of Milwaukee v. Piscuine
...to his employees, but allows other licensees to sell such beverages to such employees.' In a later Florida case, City of Miami v. Jiminez (1961), Fla.App., 130 So.2d 109, the court had before it the question of whether or not an ordinance prohibiting female employees in a drinking establish......
-
Miller v. State, 80-2283
...the convictions in the following language: "Affirmed. See City of Miami v. Kayfetz, 92 So.2d 798 (Fla.1957); City of Miami v. Jiminez, 130 So.2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)." Certiorari was filed in this court to review the action of the circuit court, sitting in its appellate capacity. Upon suc......
-
De Joris v. Lee, 31782
...A.2d 6; State ex rel. Hoffman v. Vocelle, 159 Fla. 88, 31 So.2d 52 (1947); Miami v. Kayfetz, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 798; City of Miami v. Jiminez, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 109; and Cooper v. State Board of Equalization, 137 Cal.App.2d 672, 290 P.2d 914, are relied on to support this The circumst......