CLIFF BAKER
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. HI-HAT LIQUORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION
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 held that a liquor license holder lacks standing to seek mandamus to revoke a competitor's license, even if the competitor violates the law. The petitioner must establish a special legal interest beyond mere commercial competition to pursue mandamus relief.
No. A mandamus petitioner must demonstrate either that it is a citizen with no special interest in the result or that it has a clear special legal interest or private right. A liquor license holder seeking to eliminate a competitor's license falls outside both categories, as neither licensee had exclusive territorial rights and the profits from eliminating competition are too uncertain to sustain the action.
“Its declared object was to eliminate Baker as a competitor and, in so doing, place the action in the second category.”
Establishes that Hi-Hat's explicit motive was competitive elimination rather than general law enforcement, disqualifying it from mandamus standing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHi-Hat Liquors and Cliff Baker each held identical retail liquor package store licenses in Miami. Hi-Hat's place of business was beyond the required 3…
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 Liquor License Regulation cases and more on FLexlaw
Peremptory writ of mandamus was issued by the Circuit Judge, ordering the Director of the State Beverage Department to revoke a retail liquor package store license issued to respondent, Cliff Baker, on the ground that his place of business is within 300 feet of a school site, in violation of Section 235.22, F. S. 1941, F.S.A. Respondent appeals.
The pleadings reflect that Hi-Hat and Baker hold identical licenses. Their respective places of business are located about two blocks apart, at No. 601-3 N.W. 20th St. and No. 414 N.W. 20th St., within the city limits of Miami. Hi-Hat’s place of business is beyond the prescribed 300-ft. zone, while Baker’s is within the zone. The petition and alternative writ allege that Hi-Hat complied with all the laws of the State and the United States in the conduct of its business, and charge that Baker “in the conduct of the business of a retail liquor package store *287at the location hereinbefore described is in competition with relator, and relator is entitled to the unqualified enforcement of the laws of the State of Florida concerning the sale of intoxicating liquors by competitors.”
As petitioner, Hi-Hat might have appeared (1) in the character of a citizen having no legal or special interest in the result other than having the law executed and the duty in question enforced, or (2) in that of a person enforcing a special interest or private right, in which event right to relief must clearly appear. State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 95 Fla. 14, 116 So. 48; State v. Crawford, 28 Fla. 441, 10 So. 118; Florida Central R. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482, 13 So. 103. Its declared object was to eliminate Baker as a competitor and, in so doing, place the action in the second category.
The Director, in his answer, and Baker, in his motion to quash, aver that, as licensee, Hi-Hat had no such special interest or private right that sustains the suit.
Neither licensee had anything more than a permit to engage in the liquor business. Each had the same rights and privileges. The law did not restrict competition between them, nor were they allotted any exclusive territorial areas. The profits or commercial advantages which Hi-Hat might gain in the elimination of Baker’s competition are too elusive and uncertain to sustain the action.
The cause is reversed, with directions to dismiss.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD, CHAPMAN, ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1978)…Fla. 4th DCA 1972). . See also Wyatt v. City of Pensacola, 196 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Fogg v. City of South Miami, 183 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Abdo v. City of Daytonia Beach, 147 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). . In Baker v. State, 159 Fla. 286, 31 So. 2d 275 (1947), a preemptory writ of mandamus was issued by the circuit judge, ordering the Director of State Beverage Department to revoke a retail liquor package store license issued to Baker on the ground that his place of business was wit…
-
Keating v. State of Fla. ex rel. Bernard Ausebel, 173 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1965)…license by changing it to a suspension for a period of time. Petitioner contends the District Court of Appeal in agreeing that respondent had the requisite standing to maintain his action conflicted with: Baker v. State ex rel. Hi-Hat Liquors, Inc., 159 Fla. 286, 31 So. 2d 275; Turner v. City of Miami, 160 Fla. 317, 34 So. 2d 551 and Donovan v. Schott, Fla., 58 So. 2d 847. It is necessary to refer only to the Hi-Hat Liquor, Inc., case, since a comparison ■of it with the instant case discloses conflict invo…
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 74 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1954)…Co., 95 Fla. 14, 116 So. 48, certiorari denied 281 U.S. 727, 50 S.Ct. 245, 74 L.Ed. 1144; State ex rel. Fleming v. Crawford, 28 Fla. 441, 10 So. 118, 14 L.R.A. 253; Florida Industrial Commission v. State, 155 Fla. 772, 21 So. 2d 599; Baker v. State, 159 Fla. 286, 31 So. 2d 275; Board of Public Instruction of Dade Co. v. State, 150 Fla. 213, 7 So. 2d 105; Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 So. 963; State ex rel. Sunday v. Richards, 50 Fla. 284, 39 So. 152; and Fla. Cent. & P. R. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482,…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 95 Fla. 14 (Fla. 1928)
- The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482 (Fla. 1893)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Francis P. Fleming v. Crawford, 28 Fla. 441 (Fla. 1891)