Florida Bd. of Pharmacy v. Webb's City, Inc.
Citation | 219 So.2d 681 |
Decision Date | 26 February 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 37230,37230 |
Parties | FLORIDA BOARD OF PHARMACY, Appellant, v. WEBB'S CITY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
James G. Mahorner, of White, Phipps, Linn, Furnell & Mahorner, Clearwater, for appellant.
Thomas V. Kiernan, of Kiernan & Reams, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
We here review on direct appeal a decision of the trial court holding invalid Section 1(2)(f) of Chapter 67--521, Laws of Florida, which purpoted to amend Section 465.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and expressly prohibiting retail drug establishments from using any communication media to promote or advertise the use or sale of 'any drugs which require a prescription'.
Chapter 67--521, Laws of Florida, omitting the formal parts, provides:-
'465.23 Promoting sale of certain drugs prohibited.--
'(2) No pharmacist, owner or employee of a retail drug establishment shall use any communication media to promote or advertise the use or sale of any of the following:
'(a) Narcotics;
'(b) Central nervous system stimulants;
'(c) Tranquilizers;
'(d) Barbiturates;
'(e) Other hypnotice and somnifacient drugs;
Only Section 1(2)(f) of the Act was involved in the final judgment of the trial court.
Subsection (2)(f) of Section 465.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., as amended by Chapter 67--521, reading, 'Any drugs which require a prescription,' is subject to the rule ejusdem generis since it must be read in connection with all the language of the section.
The section's object is not to regulate the advertising and promotion of all drugs requiring a prescription, but only those which have narcotic or abnormal stimulating effects as described in the first portion of the section.
Therefore, it follows subsection (2)(f) refers by any prescription drugs of the same class or classes of drugs referred to in the preceding subsections (2) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the section. None of the drugs or items by their names or descriptions as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc
...the fact that three States by court decision had struck down their prohibitions on drug price advertising. Florida Board of Pharmacy v. Webb's City, Inc., 219 So.2d 681 (Fla.1969); Maryland Board of Pharmacy v. Sav-A-Lot, Inc., 270 Md. 103, 311 A.2d 242 (1973); Pennsylvania State Board of P......
-
Maryland Bd. of Pharmacy v. Sav-A-Lot, Inc.
...93 N.J.Super. 326, 225 A.2d 728 (1966). Other states have, however, declared such statutes unconstitutional, Elorida Board of Pharmacy v. Webb's City, Inc., 219 So.2d 681 (Fla.1969); Stadnik v. Shell's City, Inc., 140 So.2d 871 (Fla.1962); Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy v. Pastor, 441......
-
Department of Ins. v. Dade County Consumer Advocate's Office
...price competition which had no reasonable relation to public safety, health, morals or general welfare. In Florida Board of Pharmacy v. Webb's City, Inc., 219 So.2d 681 (Fla.1969), we held invalid a statute which prohibited retail drug establishments from using the media to promote the use ......
-
Pennsylvania State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Pastor
...v. Sills, 93 N.J.Super. 326, 225 A.2d 728 (1966); in one state the provision has been held unconstitutional: Florida Board of Pharmacy v. Webb's City, Inc., 219 So.2d 681 (Fla.1969); Stadnik v. Shell's City, Inc., 140 So.2d 871 (Fla.1962). Nor is the pharmaceutical profession the only one i......