J. E. HOLLENBECK, SR., MORRISON I. TAYLOR, AND WALTER S. HARDIN, AS THE MEMBERS OF THE FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. RICHARD GENE. MYERS, APPELLEE; J. E. HOLLENBECK, SR. ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. EMIL MARTONY
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 upheld a trial court's determination that a special state law imposing residency and apprenticeship requirements on real estate salesman and broker applicants from Sarasota County violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court affirmed that statutory classifications by county that impose disparate burdens on similarly situated citizens without a rational basis are unconstitutional.
The special act was unconstitutional and void as a denial of equal protection. Statutory classifications by county that impose burdens on some citizens that are not imposed on other citizens under practically similar conditions, with no conceivably just basis for the distinction, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
“statutory classification by counties or otherwise, for purpose of prescribing regulations, or exactions that in effect impose burdens on some of the citizens of the state that in kind or extent are not imposed on other citizens of the state under practically similar conditions, with no conceivably just basis for the classifications or discriminations, constitute a "denial to those injuriously affected, of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution."”
Establishes the fundamental equal protection principle that county-based statutory classifications imposing disparate burdens without rational justification violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellees sought registration as real estate salesmen and brokers in Sarasota County but did not meet requirements imposed by Chapter 31271, Speci…
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 Statutory Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
The sole issue on these appeals is the constitutionality vel non of Ch. 31271, Special Acts of 1955, requiring (1) that an applicant for registration as a. real estate salesman from Sarasota County must have been a resident of the State of Florida for one year immediately prior to the filing of the application; and (2) that an applicant for registration as a real estate broker from such County must show service of an apprenticeship of two years under a registered real estate broker, or have been-“actively” registered as a broker within five years of the passage of the Act.
In mandamus proceedings instituted by the appellees against the appellants, as members of the Florida Real Estate Commission, the lower court held that the special act in question denied to the appellees the equal protection of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution and was therefore unconstitutional and void. The appellants have appealed from the peremptory writ requiring them to admit the appellees to registration as real estate salesmen, despite their lack of the residence requirement prescribed by the Act.
We find no error here. As stated by the learned trial judge in a memorandum decision filed in conjunction with his order for the issuance of the peremptory writ:
“It is fundamental law not requiring elaboration here that-statutory classification by counties or otherwise, for purpose of prescribing regulations", or exactions that in effect impose burdens on some of the citizens of the state that in kind or extent are not imposed on other citizens of the -state under practically similar conditions, with no conceivably just basis for the classifications or discriminations, constitute a "denial, to those injuriously affected, of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth , Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Fronton, Inc., v. Florida State Racing Commission, Fla., 82 So. 2d 520 and cases there cited.”
And see State ex rel. Coleman v. York, 139 Fla. 300, 190 So. 599, where this court held" unconstitutional, under Sec. 20 of Art. III of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., a population Act (which was, in fact a special act and enacted as such) which attempted to exempt two counties from the operation of the general law relating to the practice of dentistry in this state.
Finding no error, the orders issuing the peremptory writ notwithstanding the returns should be and they are hereby
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J, and THOMAS, HOB-SON, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur. TERRELL, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Charles J. Bodner v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 99 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1956)…proof to the Secretary of the Real Estate Commission of having served an apprenticeship as a salesman or saleswoman of a Registered Broker for not less than twelve (12) months prior to the filing of said application.” In Hollenbeck v. State, Fla., 91 So. 2d 177, we considered the constitutionality of Chapter 31271, Special Acts of 1955, which would have imposed special requirements upon applicants for a license as real estate salesman in Sarasota County. Among these requirements were service of an apprenti…
-
State v. Warren, 329 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…ocked with moonshine, such admission was tantamount to the commission of the offense of possessing illicit liquor in the presence of the officer. When an offense is committed in the officer’s presence, he is authorized to arrest without a warrant.” (91 So. 2d 177) In Kirby v. State, Fla.App. 4th 1969, 217 So. 2d 619, our sister court of the Fourth District had occasion to rule upon the validity of a warrantless arrest for the misdemeanor of allowing an unlicensed driver to operate a motor vehicle upon a pub…
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. T. T. Coleman v. York, 139 Fla. 300 (Fla. 1939)
- The Fronton, Inc. v. Fla. State Racing Comm'n & Clarence H. Ratliff, 82 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1955)