City of Miami v. Shell's Super Store
| Decision Date | 23 February 1951 |
| Parties | CITY OF MIAMI et al. v. SHELL'S SUPER STORE, Inc. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
J. W. Watson, Jr., and John E. Cicero, Miami, for appellants.
Robert C. Lane and Curtiss B. Hamilton, Miami, for appellee.
The City of Miami adopted ordinance 3842, requiring barbershops (1) to open Mondays through Fridays not earlier than 8:30 A.M. and close not later than 6 P.M. (2) To open on Saturdays not earlier than 8:30 A.M. and close not later than 7 P.M. (3) Prohibited the opening of barbershops on Sundays.
Appellee filed its petition challenging the validity of said ordinance alleging it to be unreasonable, invalid and unconstitutional in that it imposes an undue burden on petitioner in the exercise of its business and deprives it of its property without due process of law. The City answered denying the material allegations of the petition and alleged that it had power under its charter, Chapter 10847, Sp. Acts of 1925, as amended, to adopt and enforce the ordinance. On the issues so made testimony was taken and the chancellor entered his final decree in favor of petitioner, holding that the question presented was ruled by Quigg v. State ex rel. Leggett, 135 Fla. 842, 185 So. 842 and like cases. The City appealed.
While we recognize that the authorities touching the power of the City to enact and enforce such an ordinance do not all point the same way, we find the chancellor's decree to be supported by the decided weight of authority. Regulatory ordinances must be enacted in the light of the public interest as well as in the interest of the business regulated. Ordinance 3842 is not shown to have any relation to the health, safety and welfare of the barbers or the public but on the other hand, it is shown to be an unreasonable deterrent to appellee in the conduct of its business.
The record discloses petitioner's business to be what is currently known as a 'one stop' shopping center including grocery department, butcher shop, restaurant, drug store, dry cleaning, telegrams and barbershop. The latter was installed at heavy expense, is air conditioned, sanitary and works two shifts of barbers. It caters to a class of people who do their shopping and get their barber work done in the afternoon and evening. It keeps open till about eleven o'clock at night. To require it to conform to the ordinance would inconvenience or cut off more than fifty per cent of its customers and leave four or five barbers out of employment. It is shown to have built up a large clientele and a background of good will that is worth more. To enforce ordinance 3842 against it would destroy much of this.
The business of a barber is a lawful and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quick Chek Food Stores v. Springfield Tp.
...Most states have found limits on barber shop opening and closing hours to be invalid. See, e. g., City of Miami v. Shell's Super Store, Inc., 50 So.2d 883 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1951) (en banc ); In re Opinion of the Justices, 337 Mass. 796, 151 N.E.2d 631 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1958); People ex rel. Pinello v. ......
-
Patch Enterprises, Inc. v. McCall
...and such an inhibitive effect upon the conduct of business, as to be an invalid exercise of police power, Miami v. Shell's Super Store, Inc., 50 So.2d 883, 884 (Fla.1951), that is not the case with the ordinance in this case. The fact that the ordinance will affect plaintiffs business, and ......
-
Tonsorial Inc. v. Union City
...204 Ark. 156, 161 S.W.2d 189 (Sup.Ct.1942); State v. Danberg, 40 Del. 136, 6 A.2d 596 (Ct.Gen.Sess.1939); Miami v. Shell's Super Store, Inc., 50 So.2d 883 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1951); State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Cloud, 220 Ind. 552, 44 N.E.2d 972 (Sup.Ct.1942); Louisville v. Kuhn, 284 Ky. 684, 1......
-
Opinion of the Justices, In re
...continued. Noble v. Davis, 204 Ark. 156, 161 S.W.2d 189; State v. Danberg, 1 Terry 136, 40 Del. 136, 6 A.2d 596; City of Miami v. Shell's Super Store, Inc., Fla., 50 So.2d 883; State Bd. of Barber Examiners v. Cloud, 220 Ind. 552, 44 N.E.2d 972; City of Louisville v. Kuhn, 284 Ky. 684, 145 ......