Peters v. Brown
| Decision Date | 09 October 1951 |
| Parties | PETERS v. BROWN et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
W. C. Kemp, Miami, for appellant.
Sibley & Davis, Miami Beach, for appellees.
Appellant is a licensed dental technician practicing his profession in Miami, Florida. Appellees, Florida State Board of Dental Examiners, filed a bill of complaint alleging that appellant was practicing dentistry without a license, contrary to Section 466.29, F.S.A. Without further showing, a temporary restraining order was directed to defendant enjoining him from engaging in any practice having to do with ones dentures. There was an answer to the bill of complaint in which the material allegations thereof were denied. On final hearing the temporary injunction was made permanent. This appeal is from that decree.
Among other things, Section 466.29, F.S.A. provides that a 'copy of the record certified by the secretary-treasurer, or a certificate of such officer showing that such person is not the then owner and holder of a valid license to practice dentistry or dental hygiene, shall be sufficient showing by the board that such person is practicing dentistry or dental hygiene in contravention of this chapter, and upon such showing by the Board, temporary injunction shall be issued by the court.'
The temporary injunction was issued in response to this and other provisions of the cited statute, the constitutional validity of which is challenged, but since the case can be disposed of on other ground, we elect, under the well settled rule of this Court, to pretermit any ruling on the question of constitutionality except merely call attention to the fact that the act may come near to transgressing State and Federal Constitutional inhibitions against bills of attainder.
A bill of attainder was an old English practice that substituted conviction and punishment by legislative act in place of judicial punishment after trial and conviction. Some of the Colonial legislatures also indulged in the same practice. Under the bill of attainder the victim was punished without any investigation whatever, he was generally not present at his condemnation and was given no chance to defend himself. The legislature was prosecutor, jury and judge and fixed the punishment in the act. The bill of attainder took no account of precedent, rules of procedure or notice to the victim. The legislature acted without regard to evidence, due process or any safeguard to fair trial whatever. One of the notable instances of a Bill of Attainder enacted by Parliament was that instigated by Lord Somerset, the Prime Minister of Edward Sixth. Being convinced that his brother was trying to muscle in between him and the King, Somerset decided that he must be destroyed, so he had a bill of attainder brought in the House of Lords, charging his brother with treason. The House of Lords passed the bill without so much as notice to the brother. The House of Commons requested that the brother be heard but the request being denied by the King, the Commons passed the bill of attainder and in due course the attained brother was beheaded. Later the brother who instigated attainder was the victim of the same fate.
The Founding Fathers being conscious of the injustices worked by such procedure, twice inhibited bills of attainder in the Federal Constitution. Our State Constitution contains a like inhibition. I am not so sure that a statute like that under review which commands a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Sapp
...(Fla.1959); State v. Bruno, 104 So.2d 588, 590 (Fla.1958); State ex rel. Losey v. Willard, 54 So.2d 183, 187 (Fla.1951); Peters v. Brown, 55 So.2d 334, 335 (Fla.1951); Mayo v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Inc., 40 So.2d 555, 559 (Fla.1949); State ex rel. Crim v. Juvenal, 118 Fla. 487, 159 S......
-
Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners
...administrative board to induce the commission of a wrong or a crime for the purpose of securing a pretext to punish it.' (Peters v. Brown (Fla.1951) 55 So.2d 334, 336). In essence, the courts have concluded that recognition of the defense of entrapment is crucial to the fair administration ......
-
Patty v. Board of Medical Examiners
...Dental Commission of Connecticut (1929) 109 Conn. 73, 145 A. 570, revocation of license of dental technician; FLORIDA: Peters v. Brown et al. (Fla. 1951) 55 So.2d 334, injunction against unlawful practice of dentistry; ILLINOIS: In re Horwitz (1953) 360 Ill. 313, 196 N.E. 208, disbarment of......
-
Cruz v. State
...to the safeguards with which it is protected, than a conviction secured solely on deliberately purchased evidence. Peters v. Brown, 55 So.2d 334, 336 (Fla.1951). We do not foresee a problem in providing two independent methods of protection in entrapment cases. The New Jersey Supreme Court ......