State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers v. Cooksey

• Decision Date: 15 October 1941
• Citation: 4 So.2d 253,148 Fla. 271
• Parties: STATE BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS v. COOKSEY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

4 So.2d 253

148 Fla. 271

STATE BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS v. COOKSEY.

Florida Supreme Court

October 15, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; T. Frank Hobson judge.

Hull Landis & Whitehair, Francis P. Whitehair, and John L Graham, all of Deland, for appellants.

M. Lewis Hall, of Miami, B. M. Skelton and Wm. Kaleel, both of St Petersburg, and Tyrus A. Norwood, of Miami, for appellee.

BUFORD, Justice.

Appellee, pursuant to our disposition of this cause by our opinion and judgments filed here on the 30th day of May, 1941 and the 18th day of July, 1941, respectively, has now presented his motion praying that he be allowed to file herein an extraordinary petition for rehearing. He contends that the statute involved, Chapter 17950, Acts of 1937, is unconstitutional and void because, as he alleges, it contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and he avers that this Court failed to adjudicate the question of the constitutionality of the Act.

The contention appears to be that because a majority of the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers of Florida are required under the terms of the statute to be funeral directors and embalmers, the Board is not a fair and impartial functionary. Appellee relies on the cases of Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855, 80 L.Ed. 1160; State ex rel. Miller v. Aldridge, 212 Ala. 660, 103 So. 835, 39 A.L.R. 1470; Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749, 50 A.L.R. 1243, and other cases of like tenor.

We have considered the cases cited and many others. Our conclusion is that the cited cases are not applicable to the case at bar. The Carter Coal Co. case involved the question of the power of Congress to adopt the Act there under consideration and the delegation of legislative power. Such questions are not in this case.

Under the statute which constitutes the basis for this proceeding the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers is not empowered to regulate, direct or dictate the conduct of the business of any funeral director or embalmer. The Board is not empowered to fix standards of conduct nor to prescribe rules of conduct, nor to fix standards of fees and charges. Nor may the Board even establish rules of fair practice to be adhered to by licensees. The Board is authorized to issue certificates of qualification or licenses to those who meet the requirements of the statute determined on examination and, after full, open and free hearing, on charges in writing preferred, to determine as a fact-finding body whether or not a licensee has violated the terms of the statute, supra, by committing an act therein denounced as ground for suspension or revocation of license and empraced in the charge made, and, if the Board finds as a matter of fact that the licensee has been guilty of the act charged and specifically denounced by the statute, then it is authorized to enter its order suspending or revoking the license of the licensee.

The standards of conduct are fixed by the statute.

It appears to us that there are no principles involved in this case parallel to those involved in the Carter Coal Co. case, supra.

Under the statute, the licensee is required to have timely written notice of the charges which have been preferred against him, as well as the opportunity to be heard by himself and/or counsel, and to cross-examine witnesses against him and to produce witnesses in his own behalf on the hearing. All these things were done in the instant case.

There is nothing presented in the record to show that any member of the State Board had any personal...