LORAINE SAUNDERS BROWN
v.
OLGA B. FOLEY AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPALITY OF AND IN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court struck down a Miami municipal ordinance prohibiting women from serving liquor by the drink over a bar as unconstitutional under the Declaratory Decree statute. The court held that the ordinance was unreasonable and arbitrary because it allowed women to frequent bars and mix drinks but prohibited them specifically from serving at the bar.
The court held that Brown was entitled to use the Declaratory Decree statute despite her employment contract not being in writing, as the ordinance itself was the instrument of which she was in doubt. The court also held that the ordinance was unreasonable as applied to the appellant and therefore void.
“A municipality only has power to enact reasonable ordinances.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating municipal ordinances
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLoraine Saunders Brown, a skilled female bartender, entered into an employment contract with Olga Foley to work as a bartender in Miami after the ordi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Municipal Ordinance Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed a bill for a declaratory decree under Chapter 87, Fla. Stat., 1941, F.S.A., testing the validity of a municipal ordinance of the City of Miami. The ordinance reads:
*735“. . . ‘no female shall be employed for the purpose of, or permitted, to serve any liquor by the drink over any bar or counter. . ." (Italics supplied.)
Appellant, a woman, alleges that she is a skilled bartender and that she will be deprived of valuable rights in the continuance of her trade if the above ordinance is valid; that subsequent to the effective date of the ordinance she entered into a contract (not shown to be in writing) with appellee Foley to work for her as a bartender in the City of Miami; that she is in doubt of her rights under the quoted ordinance.
The City moved to dismiss the bill because the contract of employment was not in writing by reason whereof she was not authorized to avail herself of the remedy chosen under this statute. The other challenge to the bill asserted the validity of the ordinance.
The chancellor dismissed the bill and on appeal we will decide the two questions presented by the motion to dismiss.
We hold the appellant is entitled to the remedy under Chapter 87 otherwise known as the Declaratory Decree statute. It is true her contract of employment was not in writing, nevertheless the instrument, of which she is in doubt, is the municipal ordinance which is expressly covered by the statute.
We also hold with appellant on the second question. In a large measure the City relies on our opinion, Nelson v. State, 157 Fla. 412, 26 So. (2nd) 60, wherein we declined to hold the ordinance bad. For emphasis we might repeat that we declined to hold ordinance bad as distinguished from holding it good. As was pointed out in that case, we had no female before the court contesting the issue. Then and there we served notice that in that event the question was still open.
In our opinion this ordinance is unreasonable as applied to this appellant. It recognizes that women may frequent bars and engage in every practice as men save and except that they shall not serve liquor by the drink over the bar notwithstanding they may mix and serve it otherwise.
A municipality only has power to enact reasonable ordinances. See Roach v. Ephren, 82 Fla. 523, 90 So. 609; Perry Trading Co. v. City of Tallahassee, 128 Fla. 424, 174 So. 854. *736A lengthy dissertation on the application of this ordinance to females occupying appellant’s status would serve no useful purpose in our opinion. We can see no sound reason in law to sustain the ordinance and we hold it void. It follows the decree appealed from is reversed with directions to enter a decree not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD, CHAPMAN, and BARNS, JJ., and McNEILL, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Oise Keton, 115 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1959)…authorized by Chapter 87, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the appropriate method for testing the validity of the Miami City Traffic Ordinance and the authority of the Miami Municipal courts to assume jurisdiction over traffic cases. Brown v. Foley, 1947, 158 Fla. 734, 29 So. 2d 870, and Glackman v. Miami Beach, 1947, 159 Fla. 376, 31 So. 2d 393. See also Rule 3.6, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Because of a common interest in the underlying principles involved, appellees constitute a class eligible to bring s…
-
Coral Gates Props. v. Hodes, 59 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1952)…ilege that he is entitled to have such doubt removed and if shown to be existent, seek such relief as the circumstances warrant. He may pray for `additional, alternative, coercive, subsequent or supplemental relief'." In the case of Brown v. Foley, 158 Fla. 734, 29 So. 2d 870, 871, a woman bartender alleged that after the enactment of an ordinance by the City of Miami prohibiting any female to be employed to serve any liquor, that she was employed as a bartender, and that she was in doubt of her rights to…
-
State v. Redner, 425 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…, concur. . The balance of the ordinance requires the employees to register and be fingerprinted and photographed within forty-eight hours of their employment. . The ordinance was ultimately stricken as being unreasonable to women. Brown v. Foley, 158 Fla. 734, 29 So. 2d 870 (1947).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roach v. Ephren, 82 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1921)
- Perry Trading Co. v. The City of Tallahassee & G. Powledge, 128 Fla. 424 (Fla. 1937)
- Nelson v. State, 157 Fla. 412 (Fla. 1946)