KATHERINE JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN ALEXANDER, JOHN FITZPATRICK, LAWRENCE SWOFFORD, EDWARD YARBOROUGH AND ROBERT E. PARKER, AS AND COMPOSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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.
Katherine Johnson applied for a permit to practice palmistry in Seminole County, Florida, meeting all statutory requirements, but the Board of County Commissioners denied her application without citing any failure to meet those requirements. The court held that once an applicant satisfies the statutory prerequisites, she has a clear legal right to the permit, and the board cannot deny it based on disapproval of the occupation itself.
Once an applicant demonstrates satisfaction of all statutory requisites for a palmistry permit, she establishes a clear legal right to the permit. County boards cannot graft additional local provisions onto the statute or refuse permits based on disapproval of the occupation itself, and mandamus is the proper remedy to compel issuance when statutory requirements are met.
“It is patent that the local boards of county commissioners cannot graft local provisions onto the statute nor can they rely upon their discretion in refusing to issue all permits to practice palmistry, thereby effectively outlawing the occupation.”
Establishes that boards cannot add requirements beyond those in the statute or deny permits based on disapproval of the occupation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKatherine Johnson applied to the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners for a permit and license to practice palmistry in compliance with Flori…
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 Administrative Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Pursuant to F.S.1965, Section 205.411 (1), F.S.A.,1 relator Katherine Johnson made application to the Board of County Commissioners of Seminole County for a permit and license to practice palmistry. Her application was accompanied by supporting evidence as required by the statute *67and the clerk’s investigation report reflected that nothing could be found to prohibit the issuance of a license. Nevertheless the board declined to issue the permit. Katherine Johnson then sought mandamus to compel the board to issue her a permit. The alternative writ issued and then was quashed. It is from this order quashing the writ that relator now appeals. We reverse.
The legislature has determined the requisites for the practice of palmistry and embodied them in the language of F.S. 1965, Section 205.411, F.S.A. (now F.S. 1967, 205.351, F.S.A.). It is patent that the local boards of county commissioners cannot graft local provisions onto the statute nor can they rely upon their discretion in refusing to issue all permits to practice palmistry, thereby effectively outlawing the occupation.2 The record reveals that the respondents did not deny the application for any failure of relator to meet the statutory requirements. Rather it appears they refused to issue the permit because they disapproved of the occupation of palmistry.
It is not disputed that relator met the statutory requirements for the issuance of a permit to practice palmistry. Respondents, however, contend that they may within their discretion deny the application on other considerations. This contention is without merit.3
Having demonstrated satisfaction of the statutory requisites relator thereby established a clear legal right to the permit. Mandamus was therefore a proper remedy.4 Accordingly the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
CROSS and REED, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami Beach v. MR. Samuel's, Inc., 334 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…allowed in C-l, C-2 and C-3, all of the uses of which are included in C-4. That question is immaterial to the duty to issue the license for a lawful business in the most liberal zone where petitioner applied. Cf. lohnson v. Alexander, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 66. Affirmed.…
-
Cellon v. Johnson, 236 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Johnson v. Alexander, 219 So. 2d 66 (Fla.App.1969). JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Morse v. Seminole Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 372 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…on. The appellant contends that he met all statutory and county requirements for the issuance of a license and was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the issuance of the permit. Iley v. Harris, 345 So. 2d 336 (Fla.1977); Johnson v. Alexander, 219 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). The statute in question 1 was amended in 1976 and for the first time authorized the county commissioners to establish by ordinance criteria for the issuance of licenses to carry concealed weapons. Seminole County passed such an…
Authorities Cited
- Samie Royster v. State, 164 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Dade Cnty. v. Boswell, 167 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1964)