Telophase Soc. of Florida, Inc. v. State Bd. of Funeral Directors and Embalmers
| Decision Date | 05 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--612,74--612 |
| Citation | 308 So.2d 606 |
| Parties | The TELOPHASE SOCIETY OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida Corporation, et al., Appellants, v. STATE BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael L. Hastings of Parker, Battaglia, Parker, Ross & Stolba, and William H. Fleece of Fleece, Rhoades & Werly, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and James Whisenand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellants' interlocutory appeal is from an order granting partial summary judgment enjoining the appellants, not licensed as funeral directors, from providing and maintaining a place for preparation of dead human bodies, from preparing dead human bodies for cremation by means other than embalming, and from disposing of dead human bodies by cremation. This action was instituted by the appellee, State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, a state regulatory agency, and the injunction appealed from was based upon the trial court's review of the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and admissions resulting in findings that appellants' activities fell within the scope of 'funeral directing' as defined in § 470.01(3), F.S. 1974.
While appellants acknowledge that their activities consist of storing dead human bodies in boxes, refrigeration of these bodies and removal thereof to retorts for cremation and disposition of the ashes of such bodies, they contend such activities do not constitute funeral directing within the purview of § 470.01(3), Supra, which provides in material part as follows:
'The term 'funeral directing,' as used in this chapter, shall be construed to mean the profession of directing or supervising funerals for profit, or the profession of preparing dead human bodies for burial or cremation by means other than embalming, or the disposition or shipping of dead human bodies, or the provision or maintenance of a place for the preparation of dead human bodies.'
Appellants initially contend that to be engaged in 'funeral directing' it is necessary to engage in activities within the scope of Each of the four categories enumerated in the definition thereof in this section. The trial court in holding to the contrary concluded that such categories must be considered disjunctively. We agree.
It is fundamental that a statute should be construed so that the plain intent of the legislature is given effect. 1 Obviously, it was the legislative intent that such activities by regulated by Ch. 470, F.S. 1974. The statute is written with each category separated by the word 'or' and we assume the statutory language was chosen with regard to its grammatical propriety. Considering the subject matter and clear purpose of the statute, therefore, we decline to hold in this instance that 'or' should or can be read as 'and.' The statute makes Any of the enumerated activities subject to the regulatory provisions of Ch. 470, Supra.
Notwithstanding its correct interpretation of the statute as aforesaid, however, in entering the partial summary judgment the trial court reserved ruling on the questions of whether or not the appellants were directing or supervising funerals for profit or disposing of or shipping dead human bodies in violation of Ch. 470, Supra. This reservation, we think, was superfluous because once the trial court properly determined that appellants prepared human bodies for cremation by means other than embalming and disposed of dead human bodies, it became unnecessary to determine the existence or extent of other proscribed activities. A finding that their activities to the extent indeed found were within the scope of any one of the enumerated activities in § 470.01(3), Supra, alone justified issuance of the injunction.
Appellants next contend that since they raise certain constitutional issues, which were not expressly ruled upon by the trial court, it was premature to enter the partial summary judgment enjoining appellants' activities. We note that these issues relate to affirmative defenses and were based on alleged unconstitutional application of the statute. The fundamental validity of the statute is not assailed. Essentially, appellants argue: (1) that since others such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eaton v. Coal Par of West Virginia, Inc.
...4245 Corp. v. Division of Beverage, 371 So.2d 1032, 1034 (Fla. 1 DCA 1978); Telophase Society of Florida, Inc., v. State Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers, 308 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), aff'd, 334 So.2d 563 (Fla.1976). The Department's rulemaking authority does not include the......
-
Telophase Soc. of Florida, Inc. v. State Bd. of Funeral Directors and Embalmers
...for appellee. BOYD, Justice. In this proceeding we are reviewing consolidated appeals from the Second District Court of Appeal, shown at 308 So.2d 606, holding Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, constitutional as applied to Appellants, construing portions of the statute and affirming the trial ......
-
N. D. Private Investigative & Sec. Bd. v. Tigerswan, LLC
...defendant from collecting and disposing of solid waste in violation of statute); Telophase Soc. of Fla., Inc. v. State Bd. of Funeral Dirs. and Embalmers , 308 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975) (upholding injunction based on appellant’s violation of statute); State ex rel. Med. Licensing ......
-
Dempsey v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 48760
... ... Albert, Columbus, for Ohio State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers ... Cf. Telophase Society of Florida v. State Board of Funeral ctors and Embalmers" (Fla.App.1975), 308 So.2d 606 ... \xC2" ... ...