DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF,

v.

W. L. PHILBRICK AND PHILBRICK AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS, AND EDWIN L. MASON, JERRY W. CARTER, AND WILBUR C. KING, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, INTERVENING DEFENDANTS

Fla. | 1964-03-25

No. 33104

ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur., THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion.

162 So. 2d 266 Florida Supreme Court (1964) Positive Treatment

Cited by 8 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court declined to answer a certified question regarding the constitutional validity of Chapter 63-787, which vests exclusive ambulance regulatory authority in counties with populations exceeding 450,000. The Court held that constitutional questions must be properly raised by entitled parties, indispensable to the case's disposition, and not abstract issues.

Holding

The Court rejected the certified question on the grounds that: (1) the question lacks great public concern as it involves only a limited locality and specified industry; (2) the constitutionality of the statute was not properly raised by any party entitled to raise it; and (3) the question presents a pure abstract issue not indispensable to the disposition of the litigation.

Key Quotes

“the question must not be one presenting a pure abstract issue. It must be one indispensable to the disposition of the litigation before the Court and, in those instances where the question certified raises constitutional issues, the record here must disclose such prerequisites for it is only when such issues have been properly raised by the parties and the case may be decided on no other theory, that the Court may properly answer such question.”
Establishes the requirements for accepting certified constitutional questions

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Dade County sought injunctive relief against W. L. Philbrick and Philbrick Ambulance Service, Inc. for operating under a Public Utilities Commission c…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Constitutional Issues Certified Question Injunctive Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Issues cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

DREW, Chief Justice.

This cause, according to the certificate presenting to this Court the single question of “whether Chapter 63-787, Laws of Florida, * * * is invalid and unconstitutional,” is pending in the trial court upon deferred ruling on defendants’ motions for more definite statement and to strike the complaint seeking injunctive relief.

The sole record reference to the issue certified is the statement, contained in a petition for intervention-filed by the Florida Public Utilities Commission and granted by the Court, that “On its face Chapter 63-787 appears to be open to attack as to its constitutionality.” The cited statute simply vests in counties with population exceeding 450,000 the exclusive authority to regulate ambulances. The gist of the complaint below is that the. defendants’ operations under certificate from the Commission should be enjoined for failure to comply with County regulations passed pursuant to Chapter 63-787.

The criteria upon which this Court has previously considered or rejected certified questions, as to statutory validity and otherwise; are that they shall be distinct questions of law which are without controlling precedent applicable to points in controversy, that they are such as will facilitate the disposition of the litigation and, at least with respect to questions of statutory validity, that the question is of great public concern. Schwob Co. v. Florida Industrial Commission, 152 Fla. 203, 11 So.2d 782; Bigby v. Lykes Bros., Inc., 153 Fla. 313, 14 So.2d 565; Cantwell v. St. Petersburg Port Authority, 155 Fla. 651, 21 So.2d 139; State Road Dept. v. Forehand, Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 901; City of Hollywood v. Peck, Fla.1952, 57 So.2d 842.

The Court is in agreement that the instant question should be rejected on the ground last stated. We cannot agree that, in the sense used in the decisions, the question, involving, as it does, only a limited locality and a specified industry, is of great public concern. We believe, however, that use of the certification procedure *268may be clarified by noting additional significant reasons for declining to answer such questions, implicit in our decisions as well as the long history of similar procedures elsewhere.1 Primarily the question must not be one presenting a pure abstract issue. It must be one indispensable to the disposition of the litigation before the Court and, in those instances where the question certified raises constitutional issues, the record here must disclose such prerequisites for it is only when such issues have been properly raised by the parties and the case may be decided on no other theory, that the Court may properly answer such question. In this case the constitutionality of the statute has not been properly raised by any party to the litigation entitled to raise it. The only reference to the constitutional invalidity of the act is in the petition of the commission heretofore alluded to. In the commission’s brief the bald assertion is made “The Commission has never attacked the constitutionality of Ch. 63-787, Laws of Florida.” Obviously, therefore, this record affords no basis upon which we may properly answer the question. Such request is therefore denied.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion.

. “Upon the reservation of constitutional questions, the appellate court will * * * determine whether such questions arise in the action and whether their determination is necessary to a disposition of the case. * * * State ex rel. Keefe v. Jones, 62 Wyo. 61, 161 P.2d 135.” 5 Am.Jur.2d 451, note 1. See also Ajootian v. Providence Redevelopment Agency, 80 R.I. 73, 91 A.2d 21; Taxpayers’ League of Carbon County v. McPherson, 49 Wyo. 251, 54 P.2d 897, 106 A.L.R. 767, as to the necessity for designation of a specific constitutional provision; and White v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 367, at p. 373, 51 S.Ct. 115, at p. 118, 75 L.Ed. 388, upon a certified question as to statutory validity: “This question * * * has another fatal defect. An answer would involve merely an examination of the Act and a determination whether on its face it violates the Fifth Amendment. Neither this Court nor the court below is authorized to answer academic questions.”

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

The First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 257 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)

…n a strict interpretation to the rule for certifi-j cation of questions to an appellate Court under F.A.R. 4.6. In re: Aron’s Estate, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 546; Clar v. Dade County, Fla.App.1960, 116 So. 2d 34; Dade County v. Philbrick, Fla.1964, 162 So. 2d 266. And where the certified question does not meet the prerequisites of F.A.R. 4.6, the appellate Court is constrained to decline an answer. Hillsborough County v. Bennett, Fla.1965, 173 So. 2d 688; Lanier v. Florida Louisiana Red Cypress Co., 1943, 15…
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Bennett, 173 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1965)

…that the question certified does not meet the prerequisites of Rule 4.61, F.A.R. as interpreted in prior decisions of this Court, it is ordered that answer to the certified question be and the same is hereby declined. See: Dade County v. Philbrick, 162 So. 2d 266, and special concurring opinion of Justice Hobson in State Road Department v. Forehand, 56 So. 2d 901. DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.…
Dade Cnty. v. Philbrick Ambulance Serv., Inc., 26 Fla. Supp. 82 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1966)

…rt, the transcript of testimony and evidentiary exhibits presented by the parties at previous hearings, and the agreed statement of facts contained in the certificate certifying question to the Supreme Court of Florida. See Dade County v. Philbrick, 162 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1964). It appears that the parties have no further testimony or evidence to present at final hearing. [*84] This cause presents for determination the question of the constitutionality of chapter 63-787, Laws of Florida, and chapter 4 of the Co…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Schwob Co. of Fla. v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 152 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1942)
White v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1931)
Cantwell v. ST. Petersburg Port Auth. & City of ST. Petersburg, 155 Fla. 651 (Fla. 1945)
State Rd. Dept. v. Forehand, 56 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1952)
Bigby v. Lykes Bros., Inc., 153 Fla. 313 (Fla. 1943)
Seestedt v. S. Laundry, Inc., 155 Fla. 651 (Fla. 1945)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw