Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, No. 41233

CourtFlorida Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtADKINS; ROBERTS; DREW; DREW
Citation262 So.2d 881
Docket NumberNo. 41233
Decision Date05 April 1972
PartiesORLANDO SPORTS STADIUM, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida ex rel. Rom W. POWELL, as County Solicitor for Orange County, Florida, and Robert Eagan, as State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Appellees.

Page 881

262 So.2d 881
ORLANDO SPORTS STADIUM, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellants,
v.
The STATE of Florida ex rel. Rom W. POWELL, as County Solicitor for Orange County, Florida, and Robert Eagan, as State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Appellees.
No. 41233.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 5, 1972.
Rehearing Denied June 28, 1972.

Page 882

W. F. Simonet, of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Simonet, Orlando, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Daniel S. Dearing, Chief Trial Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellees.

ADKINS, Justice.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, having been transferred to this Court from the District Court of Appeal, Second District.

The State of Florida upon the relation of Powell, the County solicitor, and Eagen, the State Attorney, filed an amended complaint seeking to abate or enjoin a public nuisance pursuant to Fla.Stat. (1970) Chapters 823 and 60, F.S.A. It was alleged that defendants Ashlock and wife were the owners of certain land on which a building known as Orlando Sports Stadium was situated. The defendant Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc., operated the Orlando Sports Stadium. The amended complaint then contained the following allegations:

'5. On June 6, 1970, and at divers times thereafter up to and including December 29, 1970, said premises were visited

Page 883

by narcotic and other drug users for the purpose of unlawfully using hallucinogenic drugs, barbiturates, central nervous stimulants, amphetamines, narcotic drugs, habit forming drugs as described in Chapters 398, 404 or 500, Florida Statutes 1970.

'6. The matters and things alleged in paragraph 5 above constitute a public nuisance, which public nuisance will persist in the future unless abated or enjoined by this Court.'

By motion to dismiss, defendants attack the constitutionality of Chapters 823 and 60 as applied to them in this case.

Fla.Stat. § 823.05, F.S.A., provides, inter alia, that

'Whoever shall erect, establish, continue, or maintain, own or lease . . . any place where any law of the state is violated, shall be deemed guilty of maintaining a nuisance, and the building, erection, place, tent or booth and the furniture, fixtures and contents are declared a nuisance. All such places or persons shall be abated or enjoined as provided in §§ 60.05 and 60.06.'

Fla.Stat. § 823.10, F.S.A., reads as follows:

'Any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling house, building, vehicle, ship, boat, vessel, aircraft, or any place whatever, which is visited by narcotic or other drug users for the purpose of unlawfully using hallucinogenic drugs, barbiturates, central nervous stimulants, amphetamines, narcotic drugs, habit-forming drugs or any other drugs as described in chapters 398, 404 and 500, Florida Statutes, or which is used for the illegal keeping, selling, or delivering of the same, shall be deemed a public nuisance. No person shall keep or maintain such public nuisance or aid and abet another in keeping or maintaining such public nuisance.'

Fla.Stat. § 60.05(1), F.S.A., reads as follows:

'When any nuisance as defined in § 823.05, exists, the state attorney, county solicitor, county prosecutor, or any citizen of the county may sue in the name of the state on his relation to enjoin the nuisance, the person, or persons maintaining it and the owner or agent of the building or ground on which the nuisance exists.'

Fla.Stat. § 398.14, F.S.A., provides:

'Any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling house, building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or any place whatever, which is resorted to by narcotic drug addicts for the purpose of using narcotic drugs or which is used for the illegal keeping or selling of the same, shall be deemed a public nuisance. No person shall keep or maintain such public nuisance.'

Rule 1.110(b), FRCP, 30 F.S.A., requires that, to state a cause of action, a complaint must contain 'a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' and 'a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled.'

For the purposes of the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, allegations of the complaint are assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are allowed in favor of the plaintiffs' case. Popwell v. Abel, 226 So.2d 418 (Fla.App.4th, 1969); Russell v. Community Blood Bank, Inc., 185 So.2d 749 (Fla.App.2d, 1966); Simon v. Tampa Electric Company, 202 So.2d 209 (Fla.App.2d, 1967).

In the case Sub judice, for the purposes of the motion to dismiss, it is admitted that on June 6, 1970, and at divers times thereafter up to and including December 29, 1970, the premises in question were visited by narcotic and other drug users for the purpose of unlawfully using hallucinogenic drugs, barbiturates,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
65 practice notes
  • Jones v. Continental Ins. Co., No. 86-1922-Civ.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • September 22, 1987
    ...v. Carson, 280 So.2d 426 (Fla.1973); Zachary v. State, 269 So.2d 669 (Fla.1972); Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881 (Fla.1972). Due process is not complied with where a statute "forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that a man of common i......
  • Wells v. State, No. 57058
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 30, 1981
    ...of the acts or conduct prohibited since impossible standards are not required. Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881 Wells' concerted effort at concealing the marijuana belies any assertion that she did not know that her conduct of introducing the marijuana int......
  • Wallace v. Dean, No. SC08-149.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 29, 2009
    ...v. City of Daytona Beach, 471 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1983) (emphasis supplied) (citing Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881 (Fla.1972); Popwell v. Abel, 226 So.2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)). Bearing this standard in mind, the plaintiff-petitioner's second amended compl......
  • State v. Mayhew, No. 43575
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 19, 1973
    ...of the acts or conduct prohibited. Smith v. State, 237 So.2d 139 (Fla.1970), Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla.1972). In Brock v. Hardie, 154 So. 690, 694 (1934), this Court 'Whether the words of the Florida statute are sufficiently explicit to in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
65 cases
  • Jones v. Continental Ins. Co., No. 86-1922-Civ.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • September 22, 1987
    ...v. Carson, 280 So.2d 426 (Fla.1973); Zachary v. State, 269 So.2d 669 (Fla.1972); Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881 (Fla.1972). Due process is not complied with where a statute "forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that a man of common i......
  • Wells v. State, No. 57058
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 30, 1981
    ...of the acts or conduct prohibited since impossible standards are not required. Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881 Wells' concerted effort at concealing the marijuana belies any assertion that she did not know that her conduct of introducing the marijuana int......
  • Wallace v. Dean, No. SC08-149.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 29, 2009
    ...v. City of Daytona Beach, 471 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1983) (emphasis supplied) (citing Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881 (Fla.1972); Popwell v. Abel, 226 So.2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)). Bearing this standard in mind, the plaintiff-petitioner's second amended compl......
  • State v. Mayhew, No. 43575
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 19, 1973
    ...of the acts or conduct prohibited. Smith v. State, 237 So.2d 139 (Fla.1970), Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla.1972). In Brock v. Hardie, 154 So. 690, 694 (1934), this Court 'Whether the words of the Florida statute are sufficiently explicit to in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT