THE MILLER COMPANY, INC., AND IRVING E. MILLER, PETITIONERS,
v.
FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AND RONALD L. MYERS, RESPONDENTS
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 court held that the challenged provisions of the Florida Real Estate License Law are constitutional and not unconstitutionally vague or an arbitrary exercise of police power.
Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of two subsections of the Florida Real Estate License Law. They argued one subsection was unconstitutiona…
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 Florida Real Estate License Law cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioners, The Miller Company, Inc. and Irving E. Miller, brought their petition for writ of certiorari to be directed to the Florida Real Estate Commission, pursuant to the provisions of § 475.30(2) Fla.Stat, F.S.A. The petition claims the unconstitutionality of sub-paragraphs (a) and (i) of § 475.25(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
It is the contention of petitioners that § 475.25(1) (a) providing for the revocation or suspension of the registration of a registrant under the Florida Real Estate License Law for “culpable negligence” is unconstitutional because such words as used in the statute are so vague, indefinite and uncertain that it is impossible to determine the intent of the act. We hold that this contention is without merit because the term is clearly used in pari materia with the other provisions of said section.
The petitioners urge the unconstitutionality of § 475.25(1) (i) upon the ground that the same is void as an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the police power in that it provides for the revocation or suspension of the registration of a registrant for an act which is not otherwise prohibited by the laws of the State, and an act which does not involve moral turpitude. We hold that the contention is without merit because the legislature has the authority to require reasonable safeguards to the public as a part of the Real Estate License Law.
Therefore, the petition for certiorari is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trafalgar Developers, Ltd. v. Geneva Inv. Ltd., 285 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1973)…engage in the business of real estate brokers. Holland v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. Linesbaugh, 178 So. 121 (Fla.1938); Horne v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 163 So. 2d 515 (Fla.App.1964); Miller Co. v Florida Real Estate Commission, 156 So. 2d 667 (Fla.App.1963); Pokress v. Tisch [*598] Florida Properties, Inc., 153 So. 2d 346 (Fla.App.1963). The District Court of Appeal, Second District, stated in Foulk v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 113 So. 2d 714, 717 (Fla.App.1959): “The Florida legi…
-
Waltman v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Ronald L. Myers, 254 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…It is sufficient to say that we find that the Commission’s authority to make the rules in question finds an adequate basis in sect. 475.05 and sect. 475.25, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. See Miller Company v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 667; Lee v. Delmar, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 252. It may further be noted that petitioners were not exempt from the rules of the Commission simply because they were also attorneys. See Tobin v. Courshon, Fla.1963, 155 So. 2d 785; State ex rel. Bodner v. Flor…