DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HENRY CARL VANDERVOORT, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF THE HORSEMAN'S BENEVOLENT & PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, AND ALL OTHER LICENSED THOROUGHBRED OWNERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 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.
The court held that the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering rule setting minimum jockey fees is unconstitutional as it exceeds statutory authority and violates due process.
The Department of Business Regulation appealed a circuit court decision that a rule setting minimum jockey fees was unconstitutional. The rule was def…
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 Constitutional Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
The Department of Business Regulation has appealed from a decision of the Dade County Circuit Court that Rule 305 A-1.23 (17) promulgated by the Division of PariMutuel Wagering is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction because of the Court’s construction of controlling provisions of the Constitutions of Florida and the United States. Article V, § 4(2), Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
Rule 305 A-1.23 (17) of the Rules of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering set forth a minimum jockey fee schedule for payment of jockeys in absence of contract. In a declaratory judgment proceeding initiated by Vandervoort and other licensed thoroughbred horse owners, the Division defended the Rule on the two-fold theory that: (1) the State’s inherent police power appropriately embraced the profession of jockeying; (2) the Division was authorized to exercise that power in the manner under contest by Fla.Stat. §§ 550.01(1) and 550.02(4), F.S.A.
We agree with the trial court and the plaintiff horseowners below that the Legislature has not specifically authorized the setting of fees, and this is too broad a power to be derived from the general statutes cited. The Due Process Clauses of Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution preclude the prescribing of minimum wages without specific legislative authorization.
On this ground, the decision, under appeal is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ-, and SPECTOR, District Court Judge, concur.
ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Solimena v. State, 402 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ivision of PariMutuel Wagering v. Caple, supra (the anti-drugging rule is valid because the state has an interest in protecting both the health of thoroughbred horses and the integrity of the sport); Department of Business Regulation v. Vandervoort, 273 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1972) (the setting of jockey fees is not authorized [*1247] by the general statutes); State ex rel. Hollywood Jockey Club, Inc. v. Stein, 133 Fla. 530, 182 So. 863 (Fla.1938) (limiting racing to daylight hours was authorized). When the courts o…
-
Simmons v. The Div. OF Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 407 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…reasonably appropriate to the accomplishment of the purposes of the act, not whether the statute offended the doctrine of non-delegation. See Di [*273] vision of Pari-Mutuel Wagering v. Caple, supra; Department of Business Regulation v. Vandervoort, 273 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1973); Hialeah Racing Course, Inc. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., supra; State ex rel. Palm Beach Jockey Club, Inc. v. Florida State Racing Commission, 158 Fla. 335, 28 So. 2d 330 (1946); State ex rel Hollywood Jockey Club, Inc. v…
-
Meyer v. State, 402 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…d that such [*529] rules are reasonably related to the objectives of the statute, see Solimena v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, supra; compare Department of Business Regulation v. Vandervoort, 273 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1973); Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 397 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1981); and thus within the authority granted the Division. Meyer’s next contention is that the Director of the Division of Pari-…