LYLE CURTIS
v.
ROY HUTCHINGSON, AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF LAKELAND
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 reviewed a lower court's decision in a habeas corpus proceeding concerning a city ordinance that required individuals playing coin-operated machines to register personal information. The Court held the ordinance was an unreasonable exercise of police power and reversed the lower court's judgment.
No, Section 2 of the ordinance is an unreasonable exercise of police power because its sole purpose appears to be the curtailment or prevention of lawful machine operation, rather than serving a legitimate public safety or welfare interest.
“We hold that this provision of the ordinance is beyond the police power of the municipality because it is unreasonable and its only purpose could be to curtail or prevent lawful operation of the machines referred to.”
This quote states the Court's central holding regarding the unreasonableness and overreach of the ordinance.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner was charged with violating Section 2 of City of Lakeland Ordinance No. 585. This ordinance required anyone playing, patronizing, or ope…
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 Police Power cases and more on FLexlaw
— In this case we review the judgment of the Circuit Court remanding petitioner to the custody of the Chief of Police in habeas corpus proceedings wherein petitioner was charged with the violation of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 585 of the City of Lakeland which provides as follows:
“Section 2. Each and every person playing, patronizing or operating any coin-operated machine or device as described in Ordinance No. 579 of the City of Lakeland, Florida, dated September 30, 1935, shall register upon the registration sheet or booklet furnished by the location operator as provided in Section 1 hereof each time he shall approach and play such machine or device and in addition to registering by his correct name and/or initials, shall furnish his correct home address and shall indicate upon the space provided in said register the date of such registration, the amount of money played into the machine and the amount of any prizes, premiums or rewards, if any, contributed or indicated by such machine at the time of such registration.”
We hold that this provision of the ordinance is beyond the police power of the municipality because it is unreasonable and its only purpose could be to curtail or prevent lawful operation of the machines referred to. See State, ex rel. Baker, v. McCarthy, 122 Fla. 749, 166 So. 280.
' Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that petitioner be discharged.
So ordered.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Miami v. Kichinko, 156 Fla. 128 (Fla. 1945)…icipality to limit the number of licenses would be granting to them the power to curtail the revenue designed to be obtained under the State Beverage Act. This is not permissible. See Baker v. McCarthy, (Fla.) 166 So. 280, and Curtis v. Hutchingson, 125 Fla. 433, 170 So. 133. “But the city asserts that it has the power, in its charter, .to regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor. “The State Beverage Law supersedes any charter powers of the City of Miami over the subject of intoxicating liquor…
Authorities Cited
- State v. McCarthy, 122 Fla. 749 (Fla. 1936)