State ex rel. Israel v. Canova
| Decision Date | 12 October 1960 |
| Citation | 123 So.2d 672 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, on the Relation of Jacob ISRAEL, Appellant, v. F. Allan CANOVA, Don S. Evans, John Stadnik, Walter Griffin and Eric Cox, as the Florida Board of Pharmacy, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert H. Givens, Jr., Miami, for appellant.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Leonard R. Mellon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
This cause is here on appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Leon County upholding the validity of Chapter 28150, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1953, F.S.A. § 465.011 et seq., and therefore reviewable by this court on direct appeal.
The relator Jacob Israel, appellant, is a New York pharmacist. His professional degree was awarded upon completion of a two-years' training course of study in that state in 1925, and since that time he has been licensed there. The respondent Board, appellees, denied his application for permission to take the examination, preliminary to registration in this state, upon authority of the cited law, Chapter 28150, which requires that applicants, in order to be eligible for examination, shall be graduates of an accredited four-year college of pharmacy. The ruling of the Board has, in this mandamus proceeding, been approved and the law upheld by the circuit court.
Appellant's contention, briefly, is that the statute in controversy, insofar as it excepts from its terms those pharmacists already registered while excluding from eligibility for examination those such as appellant who have academic training identical with that of others previously registered and currently practicing, deprives him of the equal protection of the laws and abridges his privileges and immunities as a United States citizen, contrary to Section 12, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The test in such disputes is clear: 'It is well settled that a legislative classification should 'have some just relation to, or reasonable basis in, essential differences of conditions and circumstances with reference to the subject regulated, and should not be merely arbitrary * * *'.' Eslin v. Collins, Fla., 108 So.2d 889, 891. And the particular problem posed in this litigation does not appear to be novel. We are referred to a well reasoned and substantiated opinion of the Kansas court, relating to a statute requiring a diploma for the practice of dentistry but excluding from the requirement those already practicing:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sasso v. Ram Property Management, AG-112
...See Note 9.11 Contrast earlier Florida cases, equating a "just relation" standard to a "reasonable basis" requirement. State v. Canova, 123 So.2d 672, 673 (Fla.1960); Eslin v. Collins, 108 So.2d 889, 891 (Fla.1959).12 Compare Justice Powell's reference to the substantial relationship standa......
-
Lucas v. Maine Com'n of Pharmacy
...against other constitutional attack. E.g., Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425, 47 S.Ct. 122, 71 L.Ed. 331 (1926) (dental); State v. Canova, 123 So.2d 672 (Fla.1960) (pharmacy); State v. Kellogg, 102 Idaho 628, 636 P.2d 750 (1981) Similar pragmatic considerations have led many courts to find ......
-
Soverino v. State
...McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 85 S.Ct. 283, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964); Gammon v. Cobb, 335 So.2d 261 (Fla.1976); State v. Canova, 123 So.2d 672 (Fla.1960). In the case sub judice, we find that such a reasonable relation exists. The statute reclassifies the offense only if the law enforce......
-
FLORIDA v. CANOVA
...SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. 697. Decided March 27, 1961. Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 123 So.2d 672. Robert H. Givens, Jr. for appellant. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Page 365 U.S. 608, ...