Classic Mile, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: WIGGINTON; SMITH, C.J., and WENTWORTH
• Citation: Classic Mile, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, 536 So.2d 1048, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2036 (Fla. App. 1988)
• Decision Date: 01 September 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-1950,87-1950
• Parties: 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2036 CLASSIC MILE, INC., a Florida corporation, and Anthony Altman, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION and the Galaxy Project, Inc., Appellees.

Page 1048

536 So.2d 1048

13 Fla. L. Weekly 2036

CLASSIC MILE, INC., a Florida corporation, and Anthony Altman, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION and the Galaxy Project, Inc., Appellees.

No. 87-1950.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Sept. 1, 1988.

Frederick B. Karl, Thomas J. Maida, and Michael G. Maida of Karl, McConnaughhey, Roland & Maida, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellants.

John C. Courtney, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Department of Business Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellee DBR.

Douglas L. Stowell and Gary J. Anton of Stowell, Anton & Kraemer, Tallahassee, for appellee The Galaxy Project, Inc.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants appeal the trial court's order upholding the constitutionality of Chapter 87-38, Section 13, Laws of Florida, which is now codified in Section 550.355(2), Florida Statutes (1987). We find the statute unconstitutional in that it is a special act in the guise of a general law and was enacted in violation of Article III, Section 10, Florida Constitution. Therefore, we reverse.

Section 550.355(2) provides as follows:

In any county in which there has been issued by the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering of the Department of Business Regulation, as of January 1, 1987, two quarter horse racing permits, neither of which was utilized for racing prior to January 1, 1987, and only one jai-alai permit, the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering shall issue not more than one license in any qualifying county for the receipt and display of live thoroughbred horse races by simulcasting and for the acceptance of all legally authorized forms of pari-mutuel wagering on such races, which facility may not be located at the premises of any other pari-mutuel wagering permitholder licensed under this chapter and Chapter 551....

The wording of the statute does not facially create a special law. However, in their briefs and argument before the Court, the parties have conceded that the wording of the statute is the equivalent of a specification of Marion County alone by name since, due to the particular requirements and the temporal limitation imposed by the statute, only Marion County will ever fall within its bounds. Use of that descriptive technique for the sole purpose of specifically identifying Marion County amounts to the creation of a completely "closed class" under the guise of creating a valid classification for the enactment of a general law. See Department of Legal Affairs v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, 434 So.2d 879 (Fla.1983) and West Flagler Kennel Club v. Florida State Racing Commission, 153 So.2d 5 (Fla.1963). We decline to accept appellee's reasoning that the statewide impact of laws relating to pari-mutuel wagering is equivalent to the exercise of state proprietary functions which might salvage the legislation as a general law. Compare Cantwell v. St. Petersburg Port Authority, 155 Fla. 651, 21 So.2d 139 (1945) and St. John's River Water Management District v. Deseret Ranches of Florida, Inc.,...