Florida State Bd. of Health v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 09 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 32235,32235 |
| Citation | 149 So.2d 41 |
| Parties | FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, Petitioner, v. Richard L. LEWIS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Hans G. Tanzler, Jr., and Bjarne B. Andersen, Jr., Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Herbert D. Sikes and James H. Dixon, Jr., Jacksonville, for respondent.
This matter has been heard on a motion for a stay order pending our consideration of a petition for certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District.
The matter must be disposed of on jurisdiction grounds.
The State Board of Health promulgated certain regulations governing the commercial spraying of lawns and shrubbery with highly toxic pesticides. Respondent Lewis, alleging the invalidity of the regulations, sought an injunction in the circuit court. The chancellor denied the injunction, holding the regulations valid. The decree was reversed by the District Court of Appeal, First District. That court held the regulations invalid. Lewis v. Florida State Board of Health, Fla.App., 143 So.2d 867. The The State Board of Health has petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari on the jurisdictional ground that the decision of the District Court 'affects a class of constitutional or state officers.' Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A.; Rule 4.5, subd. c(6)(1), Fla.App.Rules, 1962 Revision, 31 F.S.A. Pending our consideration of the petition for certiorari the State Board of Health requests an order staying execution of the mandate of the District Court.
Were it not for the jurisdictional problem which we shall discuss, a stay of the mandate would follow as a matter of law in view of the fact that the petitioner is a state board. Rule 5.12 Fla.App.Rules 1962 Revision. However, we are faced with a constitutional restriction which precludes our consideration of the petition for certiorari and requires its denial sua sponte on jurisdictional grounds.
We have stated that the only jurisdictional basis for review by us, which has been asserted by the petitioner, is the claim that the decision 'affects a class of constitutional or state officers.' In this regard it is the position of the petitioner that the State Board of Health consisting of five members constitutes a 'class' of officers which entitles the Board to seek review of the subject decision. The problem which we must resolve is whether a state board, consisting of two or more members comprising a single state entity is a 'class' within the contemplation of the constitutional provision which we have cited.
Admittedly, in common parlance, two or more persons or things possessing common attributes are often considered a 'class.' However, as used in the subject constitutional provision the word 'class' cannot be accorded a definition quite so comprehensive.
The obvious purpose of the provision in question was to permit this Court to review a decision which directly affects one state officer and in so doing similarly affects every other state officer in the same category. For example, in State v. Robinson, Fla., 132 So.2d 156, this Court took jurisdiction of a decision of a District Court of Appeal, 124 So.2d 714, which affected the duties of a particular justice of the peace. In the view of the majority the justification for so doing was that the decision was sufficently broad in scope that it would, in effect, affect all justices of the peace throughout the state. To this extent the decision affected a 'class' of constitutional officers, to wit: all of the justices of the peace.
In the only other situation where the problem has been considered we have taken the position that an individual member of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solimena v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering
...cert. denied, 279 So.2d 33 (Fla.1973); Lewis v. Florida State Board of Health, 143 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962), cert. denied, 149 So.2d 41 (Fla.1963). 2. The authorizing statute. Next, appellants contend that section 550.02(3), the authorizing statute for the absolute insurer rule, invali......
-
Don's Sod Co., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, State of Fla.
...Inc., 426 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Lewis v. Florida State Board of Health, 143 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962), cert. denied, 149 So.2d 41 (Fla.1963).10 See Florida Bridge Co. v. Bevis, 363 So.2d 799 (Fla.1978); City of Cape Coral v. GAC Utilities, Inc. of Florida, 281 So.2d 493 (Fla.19......
-
Dade County v. American Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 83-1445
...supporting and enforcing legislation. Lewis v. Florida State Board of Health, 143 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962), cert. denied, 149 So.2d 41 (Fla.1963); Oak Park Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Village of Oak Park, 54 Ill.2d 200, 296 N.E.2d 344 (1973). When Cleary v. Dade County, 160 F......
-
Treasure, Inc. v. State Beverage Dept.
...Beverage Department of Florida, 221 So.2d 244 (3d Dist.Ct. App.Fla.1969).2 Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A. See Florida State Board of Health v. Lewis, 149 So.2d 41 (Fla.1963), and State v. Robinson, 132 So.2d 156 (Fla.1961).3 After disqualifying himself the Director attempted to act by is......