Noble v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1914 |
| Parties | NOBLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Suwannee County; W. F. Horne, Judge.
John D Noble was convicted of practicing dentistry and dental surgery without having obtained and recorded the required certificate, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
The organic declaration that 'all men are equal before the law' may be regarded as a guarantee that all persons shall have equal consideration and protection of the law for the maintenance and security of the rights to which they are legally entitled.
The exercise of the police power of the state necessarily involves appropriate discriminations, and the fundamental law only requires that such discriminations shall not be arbitrarily unjust or oppressive, as they affect the rights of persons.
The Legislature may regulate some occupations, and not regulate others, when private rights secured by the Constitution are not thereby invaded, and the regulations that are provided operate with substantial fairness upon practically all persons similarly situated, so that the governmental authority be not arbitrarily exercised to injure the substantial rights of or to oppress any person.
Legislative authority to regulate intrastate occupations is continuous and is subject to unlimited division when organic provisions are not violated.
Classifications of persons in legislative regulations may be on any practical substantial basis that has relation to the subject regulated and that is not purely arbitrary and essentially unjust in its operation upon the rights of persons.
If the organic declaration that 'all men are equal before the law' is given the force of a guarantee of equal protection of the laws, it is not violated when a legislative regulation within the police power of the state is made applicable to all persons as a class who are similarly situated and conditioned with reference to the regulation and the classification is not purely arbitrary.
Chapter 6192, Acts of 1911, does not impose unusual or unreasonable restrictions upon the lawful occupation of practicing dentistry or dental surgery, or prescribe arbitrarily unreasonable conditions upon the right to engage in such occupation so as to invade private rights secured by the Constitution.
An indictment which charges that the accused 'had not at the time he performed dental work obtained and had recorded a certificate from the Florida state board of dental examiners or any of its members, as required by the laws of this state, contrary to the statute,' is not fatally defective, because it is not alleged that the accused did not have a temporary certificate from a single member of the board.
Grounds of a motion for new trial are not self-supporting.
The Legislature declares the public policy of the state in enacting a statute affecting such public policy.
COUNSEL S. T. Shaylor, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
T. F. West, Atty. Gen., and Stafford Caldwell, State's Atty., of Live Oak, for the State.
Noble was convicted on an indictment charging that he, in Suwannee county, Fla., practiced dentistry and dental surgery, in that he did do and perform dental work for a named person, and 'had not at the time he performed said dental work * * * obtained and had recorded a certificate from the Florida state board of dental examiners, or any of its members, as required by the laws of said state, contrary to the form of the statute.' On writ of error it is contended that the statute requiring one who practices dentistry to have a certificate from the state board of dental examiners, or one of its members, is unconstitutional, and that the indictment is defective. The statute is as follows:
'Any person who shall practice dentistry or dental surgery in this state within the meaning of this act without having first obtained and had recorded a certificate from the Florida state board of dental examiners, or its members, or who violates any of the provisions of this act, the punishment for which he is not herein specifically provided for, shall be deemed guilty as a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment in the county jail not more than twelve months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.' Section 10, c. 6192, Acts 1911.
See, also, section 3618, Gen. St. of 1906.
It is argued that the statute violates the constitutional expression that 'all men are equal before the law,' in that it makes it a crime to engage in the practice of dentistry before obtaining a certificate from a state board and in that the statute permits regularly licensed physicians to extract teeth. The organic declaration that 'all men are equal before the law' may be regarded as a guarantee that all persons shall have equal consideration and protection of the law for the maintenance and security of the rights to which they are legally entitled. The exercise of the police power of the state necessarily involves appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Ex Rel. Fulton v. Ives
...... occupations and not regulate others, but private rights. secured by the Constitution must not be invaded and the. regulations must operate with substantial fairness upon all. persons similarly situated. That doctrine was upheld in the. case of Noble v. State, 68 Fla. 1, 66 So. 153. See,. also, Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U.S. 342,. 36 S.Ct. 370, 60 L.Ed. 679, L.R.A.1917A, 421, Ann. Cas.1917B,. 455. The last-cited case being one involving the validity of. chapter 6421, Laws of Florida 1913, providing for an. additional license ......
-
Marasso v. Van Pelt
...or wisdom, necessity or expediency are foreclosed to the courts by the enactment of the regulations by the lawmaking power. Noble v. State, 68 Fla. 1, 66 So. 153; St. Advertising Co. v. City, 249 U.S. 269, 39 S.Ct. 274, 63 L.Ed. 599 (March 24, 1919). If organic regulations of the sale of in......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Lakeland
...clause, and the former being substantially the equivalent of the 'equal protection' clause of the Federal Constitution. See Noble v. State, 68 Fla. 1, 66 So. 153. And again, Carr v. City of Kissimmee, 80 Fla. 754, 86 So. 701, this court said: 'There are various methods of paying for street ......
-
Ex Parte Francis
...Coke Co. v. Kelly, 34 S.Ct. 856, 58 L.Ed. 1288; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Cade, 233 U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 678, 58 L.Ed. 1135; 68 Fla. 1, 66 So. 153; 67 Fla. 370, 65 So. The provisions of chapter 7284, Acts of 1917, here considered, are as follows: 'Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for an......