STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. STONE'S LIQUOR STORES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
v.
JAMES T. VOCELLE, AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT 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.
A liquor store owner sought mandamus to compel the state beverage director to approve a license transfer to a new location in Miami. The Florida Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the owner's existing license was grandfathered under a special act limiting new licenses, and therefore was entitled to renewal and relocation without running afoul of the licensing quota.
The relator was entitled to the peremptory writ of mandamus. The relator's existing license fell within the grandfathering proviso of Chapter 24706, which exempted licenses in effect and properly issued during or for the license year beginning October 1, 1946, from the limitation provisions. Therefore, the license was entitled to annual renewal as a matter of course and could be relocated without increasing the total number of licenses in Miami.
“the limitation provisions of this Act shall not apply to the licenses in effect and which were issued by the City of Miami to retail vendors of intoxicating beverages during or for the license year beginning October 1, 1946, and which comply with the laws of the City of Miami”
The grandfathering proviso of Chapter 24706 that exempted existing licenses from the new quota limitation, which was the basis for the court's decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStone's Liquor Stores held a valid city, state, and county license to operate a package store in Miami. The store needed to relocate to an immediately…
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.
We issued an alternative writ of mandamus directing respondent to approve an application for a license to sell liquor or show cause. Respondent answered and relator has now moved for a peremptory writ notwithstanding the answer.
Relator held a license from the City of Miami and also a state and county license to operate a package store. He found it necessary to move his location to an immediate adjacent location. On his application the City of Miami granted his license for the new location. Respondent’s refusal is based upon Chapter 24706, Special Acts of 1947, the effect of which is to limit the number of licenses, except in certain instances, to one license to each 1500 persons in the City of Miami.
We are asked to hold the special act unconstitutional. It is our conclusion that the relator is entitled to the relief asked without a declaration that the challenged act is void. For that reason we make no commitment as to the constitutionality of the act. The act contains a proviso: (Chapter 24706, Special Acts, 1947.)
“ . . . that the limitation provisions of this Act shall not apply to the licenses in effect and which were issued by the City of Miami to retail vendors of intoxicating beverages during or for the license year beginning October 1, 1946, and *540which comply with the laws of the City of Miami and all licenses in effect and which were properly issued for or during the license year beginning October 1, 1946, and which comply with the laws of the City of Miami shall from year to year hereafter, upon payment of the requisite license fees therefor, be renewed and reissued by such city for the continuation of the same type of business being conducted by such vendors and at the same location specified in such licenses: . . . ”
Relator’s case comes under this proviso and was entitled to have his state and county licenses. The City of Miami evidently so recognized his right and so should the state. Under general law the annual renewal of licenses shall be granted as a matter of course unless same are revoked or the holder is disqualified. Sections 561.27, 561.28, Fla. Stat., 1941, F.S.A. Provision is also made for the licensee to move his location. Section 561.33, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. In this case the move would not call for an increase in the number of licenses in the City of Miami.
For the reasons stated the peremptory writ is ordered.
So ordered.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, C. J., and WHITE, Associate Justice, dissent.
HOBSON, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. S. A. M. Corp., 167 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…it could have-brought suit to abate a public nuisance. See- [*759] §§ 823.01 and 64.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. However, it could not arbitrarily and pérempto-rily deny appellee the renewal. See State ex rel. Stone’s Liquor Stores, Inc. v. Vocelle, 1948, 160 Fla. 539, 35 So. 2d 649. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the judgment appealed is without error and should be affirmed. Affirmed.…