Dowdy v. Lawton
| Decision Date | 20 April 1954 |
| Citation | 72 So.2d 50 |
| Parties | DOWDY et al. v. LAWTON et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard W. Ervin, Atty Gen., and T. Paine Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioners.
John M. Allison, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for respondents.
The respondents are licensed dispensing opticians in Pinellas County. The petitioners are members of and constitute the State Board of Dispensing Opticians, as provided for by Chapter 484 F.S.1951, F.S.A. The petitioners adopted certain rules and regulations with reference to licensed practicing dispensing opticians to which respondents objected. There was evidently some prior correspondence between respondent Lawton and the petitioners which culminated in a letter of October 16, 1953, which reads as follows:
'I have your letter of October 14 in which you say that you have left the employment of St. John's Opticians and have accepted a position at Webb City.
'The Opticians Law is clear and I feel positive that you realize that what you are doing or about to do will not be in keeping.
'The Board, therefore, will have no alternative but to take whatever action will be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Law.'
The respondents brought suit in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. They prayed that the Court enter an appropriate decree, (a) construing the rules, (b) declaring whether the said rules are lawful, and (c) whether said rules deprive them of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida, and for other relief.
Motion to dismiss the complaint for declaratory relief was filed by the petitioners upon the ground of improper venue because the said Board is a governmental agency of the State of Florida, with the official residence at the seat of government in the City of Tallahassee, County of Leon, in the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida. The Circuit Judge denied the motion to dismiss. This petition for certiorari is to review that order of the Circuit Judge.
It is not questioned that the petitioners are members of the State Board of Dispensing Opticians and that said board is a State agency. It is insisted that the Circuit Court of Pinellas County has jurisdiction by reason of an immediate threat to respondents contained in the letter above quoted of October 16, 1953 of the Secretary of the Board. The threat is most general in that no time is fixed to take any action and the kind of action is not even suggested. There was nothing immediate because, as appears by this record, the so-called threat was made October 16th and the suit was filed on November 13th. It does not appear that any action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. State
...supra; Gay v. Ogilvie, supra; Henderson v. Gay, supra; McCarty v. Lichtenberg, S.C.Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 655; Dowdy et al. v. Lawton, et al., S.C.Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 50; Florida Real Estate Commission, etc. v. State of Florida ex rel. Bodner, supra; East Coast Grocery Company v. Collins, S.C.Fl......
-
State, Dept. of Labor and Employment Sec. v. Lindquist
...and imminent rather than contingent and anticipatory to qualify as an exception to the general rule of venue. See id.; Dowdy v. Lawton, 72 So.2d 50, 51 (Fla.1954) (refusing to override venue privilege where "At most the threat was that in due course [the state agency] would take some kind o......
-
Florida Public Service Commission v. Triple A Enterprises, Inc.
...by the commission; rather, the plaintiffs filed this action twenty-six days after the "threatening" letter was written. In Dowdy v. Lawton 72 So.2d 50 (Fla.1954), the Board of Dispensing Opticians wrote a letter on October 16, 1953, to a licensed dispensing optician in Pinellas County advis......
-
Department of Revenue v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Fort Myers, 71--395
...the cause pursuant to Rule 1.060(b), R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. Reversed. PIERCE, C.J., and MANN, J., concur. 1 See, e.g., Dowdy et al. v. Lawton et al. (Fla.1954), 72 So.2d 50; Henderson v. Gay (Fla.1950), 49 So.2d 325; Morris v. Williams (Fla.App.1967), 199 So.2d 747; and Green v. Bob Lourie Films......