LEO A. CHAIKIN, CARL WEINKLE AND AARON WEINKLE CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF WEINKLE LIQUOR STORES,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF 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 affirmed a lower court's decision upholding a Miami ordinance that restricted the issuance of new liquor licenses in certain zones. The ordinance prevented licenses in "Combination Residential and Business Zones" within 2500 feet of an existing licensee.
Yes, the ordinance is valid. The court found that the petitioners' contentions had been previously decided adversely by this Court in similar cases.
“The petitioners sought the issuance of a license to sell intoxicating liquors in a package store, in the City of Miami.”
Establishes the core request of the petitioners.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners sought a license to sell intoxicating liquors in Miami. They challenged Municipal Ordinance No. 2896, which prohibited new licenses if the…
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 Declaratory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioners sought the issuance of a license to sell intoxicating liquors in a package store, in the City of Miami. They filed a petition for a declaratory decree under the provisions of F.S.A. Sec. 87.01, basing their contention upon the invalidity of Municipal Ordinance No. 2896, which prevented the issuance of a new license for one whose place *743of business would be located in what was termed a “Combination Residential and Business Zone,” within 2500 feet of an established licensee. The Chancellor, in a comprehensive final decree, upheld the validity of the ordinance. The contentions of the petitioners have been decided adversely by this Court in City of Miami v. State ex rel Green, 131 Fla. 864, 180 So. 45; City of Miami v. Kichinko, 156 Fla. 128, 22 So. 2nd. 627; State ex rel Dixie Inn, Inc. v. City of Miami, et al., 156 Fla. 784, 24 So. 2nd. 705.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., BUFORD, CHAPMAN, ADAMS, and BARNS, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, J., nor participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City of Miami v. Kichinko, 156 Fla. 128 (Fla. 1945)
- Dayton v. Oyama, 156 Fla. 784 (Fla. 1946)
- City of Miami v. State, 131 Fla. 864 (Fla. 1938)