RETAIL LIQUOR DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF DADE COUNTY, A FLORIDA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, AND NORMAN JONAS AND SIDNEY ROTH, DOING BUSINESS AS RED ROAD LIQUORS, APPELLANTS,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 dealers association sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether state law required retail liquor establishments to close on the date of a special charter election. The court reversed, finding that the county was not the proper defendant because the county had no enforcement responsibility under state liquor laws.
The county was not the proper defendant because it was not charged with enforcing state liquor regulations, and the decree must be reversed and the complaint dismissed. The proper controversy exists between the liquor dealers and the state agency responsible for enforcing state liquor closing hour laws.
“It is essential that the party defendant in a declaratory action be the party or parties whose interest will be affected by the decree.”
Establishes the foundational requirement for proper parties in declaratory judgment actions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Board of Commissioners of Dade County requested the county attorney's opinion on whether state law required retail liquor establishments to remain…
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 Bona Fide Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
The record on this appeal consists only of a complaint for declaratory decree and a decree thereon. It appears from the complaint that the Board of Commissioners of Dade County requested an opinion from their county attorney as to whether state law would require establishments selling retail alcoholic beverages to remain closed on May 21, 1957. This was the date set for a special charter election. It is not disclosed whether appellant requested that this opinion be procured. The opinion was in the affirmative and acting upon this opinion the appellants brought their complaint for declaratory decree against “Dade County”, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. No pleadings were filed by the defendant, but apparently with defendant’s consent the cause came on for hearing five days after the filing of the complaint, and the Chancellor entered the decree which is appealed.
It is apparent that the appellants wanted an opinion from the circuit judge, and that he was led to believe that there was a bona fide dispute between the contending parties. It now appears from argument before this Court that the circuit judge was inadvertently misled. The appellants, in essence, ask for a construction of a state statute. Their controversy, if any, exists between themselves and the agency or agencies of the State of Florida charged with the enforcement of the state law regulating the closing hours of retail liquor establishments. It neither is shown that the Board of County Commissioners are charged with such responsibility, nor is it shown that they have undertaken the enforcement of such laws. See § 104.381, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and § 562.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. It is essential that the party defendant in a declaratory action be the party or parties whose interest will be affected by the decree. Ervin v. Taylor, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 816; State v. Lewis, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 823; See 1 Anderson, Declaratory Judgments, Sections 130, 179 (2nd ed. 1951) and cases cited therein; cf. Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 445, 448.
It therefore appears that the decree must be reversed with directions to set aside the decree appealed from and dismiss the complaint for declaratory decree, without prejudice.
Reversed with directions.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Educ. v. Glasser, 622 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1993)…relief is entertained all persons who have an “actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the subject matter” should be before the court. May v. Holley, 59 So. 2d 636, 639 (Fla.1952); see also Retail Liquor Dealers Ass’n v. Dade County, 100 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA1958). The tax collector in the instant case had no interest antagonistic to the school district’s interest and, in fact, made little or no attempt to defend the legislation at issue here. The right to education is basic in a democracy.…
Authorities Cited
- Ervin v. Taylor, 66 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1953)
- State v. Lewis, 72 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1954)