Robbins v. Webb's Cut Rate Drug Co.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1943 |
| Citation | 153 Fla. 822,16 So.2d 121 |
| Parties | ROBBINS et al. v. WEBB'S CUT RATE DRUG CO., Inc., et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1944.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; T. Frank Hobson, judge.
Ausley Collins & Ausley, of Tallahassee, and D. Niel Ferguson of Ocala, for appellants.
Erle B Askew and Clair A. Davis, both of St. Petersburg, for appellees.
Chapter 20425, Acts of 1941, F.S.A. § 476.25 et seq., authorizes the Barbers' Sanitary Commission to prescribe and enforce rules and regulations fixing minimum prices to be charged for barber services and the hours within which barber shops may be operated. Pursuant to the authority so conferred, the Commission promulgated a schedule of minimum prices to be charged by barbers in Pinellas County. Opening and closing hours were fixed at 8 A. M. and 9 P. M. except on Saturday the closing hour was extended to 10 P. M.
In January, 1943 appellees as complainants filed their bill of complaint in the Circuit Court seeking to restrain the enforcement of the orders as promulgated by the Commission. A motion to dismiss the bill was overruled and defendants declining to plead further a final decree was entered as prayed for. This appeal is from the final decree.
It is first contended that Chapter 20425, Acts of 1941, violates the due process clause of the State and Federal Constitution in that it fails to require the Barbers' Sanitary Commission to give notice to the public of hearings which it is authorized to hold with the view of fixing minimum prices for barber services and the time for opening and closing barber shops.
The act in general terms authorizes the Commission when petitioned by the barbers of the county to hold an investigation to ascertain the reasons therefor and fix reasonable charges for barber services. It also authorizes the Commission to give notice to all persons 'affected by orders' of the Commission as to time and place of the investigation. The only persons named in the act affected by the orders of the Commission are barbers and operators of barber shops.
This Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have repeatedly held that the public is vitally interested in all regulations of administrative boards fixing prices for services or commodities and that such notice and hearing must be given the public in strict compliance with the law. The law must require notice and give opportunity to be heard; it is not enough that the public get it by chance. Otherwise the requirements of due process fail. Miami Laundry Co. v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Board, 134 Fla. 1, 183 So. 759, 119 A.L.R. 956.
It is next contended that Chapter 20425, Acts of 1941, unlawfully delegate legislative power to the Barbers' Sanitary Commission in that it prescribes no rule or guide to define what constitutes 'unfair or unreasonable economic practices among barbers or barber shops' or 'what tends to make insecure the economic status of the barbers therein.'
In State v. Fowler, 94 Fla. 752, 114 So. 435, 437, this Court defined the rule to guide the legislature in the promulgation of statutes vesting the rule making power in administrative boards, as follows:
'The Legislature may not delegate the power to enact a law, or to declare what the law shall be, or to exercise an unrestricted discretion in applying a law; but it may enact a law complete in itself designed to accomplish a general public purpose, and may expressly authorize designated officials within definite valid limitations to provide rules and regulations for the complete operation and enforcement of the law within its expressed general purpose.'
The act under review leaves to the unrestrained discretion of the Barbers' Sanitary Commission the power to define 'unfair or unreasonable economic practices' and 'what tends to make insecure the economic status of the barbers therein.' These terms or phrases have no set meaning in law or in common usage. To vest in a Commission the unbridled discretion to define such terms without any rule or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B.H. v. State
...but we did strike the "unfair trade practices" provision as a violation of separation of powers. Accord Robbins v. Webb's Cut Rate Drug Co., 153 Fla. 822, 16 So.2d 121 (1943). Obviously, the "unfair trade practices" language arguably delegated some penal authority to the Commissioner in vio......
-
Shiver v. Lee
...Continental Distilling Corporation, Fla. 1948, 40 So.2d 371; McRae v. Robbins, 1942, 151 Fla. 109, 9 So.2d 284; Robbins v. Webb's Cut Rate Drug Co., 153 Fla. 822, 16 So.2d 121; Miles Laboratories v. Eckerd, Fla. 1954, 73 So.2d 680; State ex rel. Fulton v. Ives, 123 Fla. 401, 167 So. 394; Se......
-
Ratley v. Batchelor
...the plaintiff, had the burden of proving compliance with the requirements of the law to effect that avoidance. Robbins v. Webb's Cut Rate Drug Co., 16 So.2d 121, 123 (Fla.1943) ("It is incumbent on those relying on an act for protection to bring themselves within the specifications laid dow......
-
D'Alemberte v. Anderson
...prohibit "unfair trade practices" (§ 573.17(3)(c), Fla.Stat.) was subject to the same infirmity. Relying on Robbins v. Webb's Cut Rate Drug Co., 153 Fla. 822, 16 So.2d 121 (1944), a case considering whether a similar authorization respecting "unfair or unreasonable economic practices among ......
-
Walking the Tightrope: Finding Balance Between Strict Nondelegation and the Administrative State through an Examination of State Experiences
...reasonable standards which enable the affected public to meet the requirements of the enactment.”); Robbins v. Webb’s Cut Rate Drug Co., 16 So. 2d 121, 122 (Fla. 1943) (“To vest in a Commission the unbridled discretion to define such terms without any rule or standard whatever to guide the......