Nelson v. State ex rel. Gross
| Decision Date | 07 May 1946 |
| Citation | 26 So.2d 60,157 Fla. 412 |
| Parties | NELSON, Chief of Police, v. STATE, ex rel. GROSS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1946.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; George E. Holt Judge.
J. W Watson, Jr., of Miami, for appellant.
Vincent C Giblin, of Miami, for appellee.
Gramling & Gramling, of Miami, amicus curiae.
Section 24, Chapter 26, of the City Code of Miami, provides that 'no minor shall be employed by any vendor whose principal business is the sale of intoxicating liquors and no female shall be employed for the purpose of, or be permitted, to serve any liquors by the drink over any bar or counter.'
The appellee Herman Gross, was arrested on a charge that he 'did then and there employ and permit a female to serve liquor by the drink over a bar or counter,' contrary to the quoted part of the City Code underscored. He applied for and secured a writ of habeas corpus on the theory that the City was devoid of power to enact or enforce the pertinent part of the City Code and that it was void because in conflict with various provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions. A return to the writ was filed, and on final hearing the provision of the Code was held to be invalid and the petitioner was discharged. This appeal is from the final judgment.
The first question presented is whether or not the City of Miami had power to enact a law prohibiting the employment of women as barmaids to serve liquor by the drink over the bar.
Appellee Gross contends that the State Beverage Act, Chapters 561 and 562, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., is a general, comprehensive act, designed to regulate all phases of the sale distribution, and manufacture of intoxicating beverages; that it is statewide in its application and leaves nothing in the way of regulation for the municipalities, except such as pertain to hours of sale, location of the business, and sanitary requirements.
To support this contention, appellee relies on City of Miami v. Kichinko, Fla., 22 So.2d 627, and similar cases. In the Kichinko case we were confronted with an alleged clash of State and Municipal power with reference to the licensing of liquor houses, and we there held that the state law was controlling as to licensing but that the city ordinance might regulate the hours of sale, location of places of business, and prescribe sanitary restrictions. It was not intended to foreclose every phase of municipal regulation by this pronouncement.
In the case at bar a phase of regulation is injected that was not involved or considered in the Kichinko case; viz., the employment of women to serve liquor by the drink over the bar. The employment of women to dispense liquors is not a part of the State Beverage Act, and the manner of their employment in no way affects the purpose of that act. Section 168.07, Florida Statutes of 1941, F.S.A., and other provisions of the General Law and the City Charter, award the City broad police powers to regulate in the interest of the general welfare, and these powers should not be stricken down, unless they run afoul of some provision of the State Beverage Act.
An authorized municipal regulation that does not infringe on the State's plan to license and regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors should not be held bad, absent an express purpose to do so. This is especially true when, as here, the State plan does not touch the phase regulated and the City has power to enact it. Another fact pertinent to this discussion is that no female is here complaining. While we do not decide the point, if that were the case, a different question might be presented. It may be ridiculous as appellee contends, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. City of St. Paul
...relation to the objects to be achieved by the ordinance. The case of Brown v. Foley, 158 Fla. 734, 29 So.2d 870, overruling Nelson v. State, 157 Fla. 412, 26 So.2d 60, is cited contra and is urged upon us as not only announcing the correct rule, but as indicating the tendency of judicial th......
-
Del Percio v. City of Daytona Beach
...(Fla. 2d DCA 1977), approved in Martin v. Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, 364 So.2d 449 (Fla.1978); see Nelson v. State, 157 Fla. 412, 26 So.2d 60 (1946). An ordinance that completely bans nude dancing or entertainment within a city apparently violates the first amendment of th......
-
Goesaert v. Cleary
... ... interlocutory injunction to restrain the enforcement of a law of the State of Michigan enacted by the Legislature on April 30, 1945, known as Act 133 ... : What is the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment if not to prevent gross, unreasonable discrimination of this kind? Both the state and federal ... Mr. Justice McKenna in Ohio ex rel. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U.S. 445, 24 S.Ct. 703, 704, 48 L.Ed. 1062, says: ... In Nelson, Chief of Police v. State ex rel. Gross, 157 Fla. 412, 26 So.2d 60, the ... ...
-
City of Miami Springs v. J.J.T., Inc.
...U.S. 1046, 98 S.Ct. 891, 54 L.Ed.2d 797 (1978) (same); and as not being improper exercises of the police power, Nelson v. State ex rel. Gross, 157 Fla. 412, 26 So.2d 60 (1946) (ordinance forbidding female bartenders); City of Miami v. Jiminez, 130 So.2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961) (ordinance pro......