World Fair Freaks & Attractions, Inc. v. Hodges
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Citation | 267 So.2d 817 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1972 |
Page 817
v.
George HODGES, Police Chief, North Bay Village, Florida, et al., Appellees- Defendants.
Royal Flagg Jonas, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Barry Scott Richard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
DEKLE, Justice.
The constitutionality of Fla.Stat. § 867.01, F.S.A., is brought into question by this direct appeal, vesting jurisdiction. Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A. The statute prohibits the exhibition for pay or compensation of any crippled or physically-distorted, malformed or disfigured person in any circus, side show or other place where admission fee is charged, and makes the violation thereof punishable by one-year imprisonment or $1,000 fine. Although the final judgment and arguments refer to the total 'Ch. 867' which involves a section 2 referring to the exhibition of deformed animals, the questions and arguments presented do not reach this section 2, which is therefore not treated in this appeal. The parties waived oral argument.
Plaintiff Terhune was born a dwarf who has been booked and shown by Plaintiff World Fair Freaks and Attractions; Plaintiff Berent was born with deformed extremities and is generally known as 'Sealo the Seal Boy.' It is alleged that neither of these plaintiffs has any means of gainful employment except their exhibition publicly for profit, as with Plaintiff Attractions. These two plaintiffs assert that their gainful employment is prevented by virtue of the threat of arrest and of imprisonment or fine under the statute, and that fairs, amusement parks and carnivals have advised that they will not permit their exhibition in face of the statute, resulting in complete loss of income to the individual
Page 818
plaintiffs. Furthermore, the Police Chief of North Bay Village, Florida, has informed plaintiffs that they will be prosecuted under the statute if they should proceed with such exhibitions.It is plaintiffs' position that:
1. the statute is unconstitutionally discriminatory;
2. it deprives plaintiffs and others similarly situated of their right to work and to earn a living and the corporate plaintiff's right to earn profits from its business;
3. plaintiffs are thereby deprived of their property (livelihood) without due process of law in violation of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions;
4. Fla.Stat. § 867.01, F.S.A., deprives plaintiffs of equal protection under the U.S. and Florida Constitutions;
5. the statute does not protect the public health, morals, safety or general welfare; and
6. Fla.Stat. § 867.01, F.S.A., is vague, indefinite and uncertain and sets no standards for its enforcement.
To be weighed against each other in situations of this kind are the interests of society generally and of the individual in particular. Within the accuracy of our courts' scales lies that freedom and justice which undergird a free society and a viable democracy. Upon the precision and independence with which our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Telophase Soc. of Florida, Inc. v. State Bd. of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, Nos. 47187
...monopoly for no discernible public purpose should not be sanctioned by the courts. World Fair Freaks and Attractions, Inc. v. Hodges, 267 So.2d 817 (Fla.1972); State ex rel. Hosack v. Yocum, 136 Fla. 246, 186 So. 448 (1939); State ex rel. Fulton v. Ives, 123 Fla. 401, 167 So. 394 (1936); Ri......
-
Miami-Dade Optical Dispensary, Inc. v. Florida State Bd. of Optometry, MIAMI-DADE
...has urged several grounds for reversal, none of which do we find to have merit. World Fair Freaks and Attractions, Inc. v. Hodges, 267 So.2d 817 (Fla.1972); Pushkin v. Lombard, 279 So.2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Will Ross, Inc. v. Florida State Board of Optometry, 314 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA ......
-
Gardner v. Johnson, No. 63665
...by the district court with each court relying heavily on the opinion of this Court in World Fair Freaks and Attractions, Inc. v. Hodges, 267 So.2d 817 (Fla.1972). In World Fair Freaks, this Court declared unconstitutional the former companion statute to section 877.16, section 867.01, Flori......
-
Gardner v. Johnson, No. 82-995
...section under attack was unconstitutional, the trial court relied heavily on the case of World Fair Freaks Attractions, Inc. v. Hodges, 267 So.2d 817 (Fla.1972). It was in that decision that the Florida Supreme Court held unconstitutional the then companion statute, section 867.01, Florida ......
-
Telophase Soc. of Florida, Inc. v. State Bd. of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, Nos. 47187
...monopoly for no discernible public purpose should not be sanctioned by the courts. World Fair Freaks and Attractions, Inc. v. Hodges, 267 So.2d 817 (Fla.1972); State ex rel. Hosack v. Yocum, 136 Fla. 246, 186 So. 448 (1939); State ex rel. Fulton v. Ives, 123 Fla. 401, 167 So. 394 (1936); Ri......
-
Miami-Dade Optical Dispensary, Inc. v. Florida State Bd. of Optometry, MIAMI-DADE
...has urged several grounds for reversal, none of which do we find to have merit. World Fair Freaks and Attractions, Inc. v. Hodges, 267 So.2d 817 (Fla.1972); Pushkin v. Lombard, 279 So.2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Will Ross, Inc. v. Florida State Board of Optometry, 314 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA ......
-
Gardner v. Johnson, No. 63665
...by the district court with each court relying heavily on the opinion of this Court in World Fair Freaks and Attractions, Inc. v. Hodges, 267 So.2d 817 (Fla.1972). In World Fair Freaks, this Court declared unconstitutional the former companion statute to section 877.16, section 867.01, Flori......
-
Gardner v. Johnson, No. 82-995
...section under attack was unconstitutional, the trial court relied heavily on the case of World Fair Freaks Attractions, Inc. v. Hodges, 267 So.2d 817 (Fla.1972). It was in that decision that the Florida Supreme Court held unconstitutional the then companion statute, section 867.01, Florida ......