DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ACME SPECIALTY CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
A county ordinance banning the sale of sparklers is unconstitutional because it conflicts with a state statute that specifically exempts sparklers from the definition of fireworks and permits their sale.
A county enacted an ordinance banning the sale of sparklers. The state statute defining fireworks specifically exempts sparklers and permits their sal…
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 Home Rule Charter cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Chief Judge.
By this appeal, the County questions the correctness of a final judgment holding null and void those portions of a County ordinance banning the sale of “sparklers”. Section 791.01, Fla.Stat.,1 F.S.A., defining fireworks, has a specific exemption as to sparklers and provides in part that they may be offered for sale.
The Supreme Court of Florida has recently had occasion to review the propriety of a municipality attempting to enact an ordinance prohibiting activities authorized by a general State statute. Rinzler v. Carson, Fla.1972, 262 So. 2d 661. Examining the ordinance under attack in light of the cited statute, the sale of sparklers having been specifically approved by the Legislature of this State, we believe the trial court was correct in the final judgment declaring so much of the County’s fireworks ordinance2 which prohibits such sale to be unconstitutional.
Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. “791.01 Fireworks defined
* * :!: * *
“ (2) The term ‘fireworks’ shall not include sparklers, toy pistols, toy canes, toy guns, or other devices in which paper caps containing twenty-five hundredths grains or less of explosive compound are used, providing they are so constructed that the hand cannot come in contact with the cap when in place for the explosion, and toy pistol paper caps which contain less than twenty hundredths grains of explosive mixture, the sale and use of which shall be permitted at all times.”
. County ordinances under Home Rule Charter are to be treated the same as municipal ordinances. See: Applied Research Laboratories of Florida, Inc. v. Homer, Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 732; Delano v. Dade County, Fla.1973, 287 So. 2d 288.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Chase Fed. Hous. Corp., 737 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1999)…attempted to be exercised which may affect the operation of a state statute, the doubt is to be resolved against the ordinance and in favor of the statute.” Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So. 2d 661, 668 (Fla.1972); see Dade County v. Acme Specialty Corp., 292 So. 2d 378, 378 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (“County ordinances under [the] Home Rule Charter are to be treated the same as municipal ordinances.”); Dade County Code § 24-2 (declaration that County Code must not be construed as “superseding or conflicting with” an…
-
Phantom OF Brevard, Inc. v. Brevard Cnty., 3 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 2008)…county’s additional insurance requirement without violating any provision of chapter 791. Thus, the “Evidence of financial responsibility” provision can coexist with chapter 791. There is no direct conflict. Cf. Dade County v. Acme Specialty Corp., 292 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (holding that portion of county ordinance that banned the sales of sparklers was unconstitutional because it directly conflicted with section 791.01, Fla. Stat., which specifically approved the sale of sparkers). The Fifth Distri…
-
Acme Specialty Corp. v. City OF Miami, 292 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…BARKDULL, Chief Judge. This case was argued as a companion to Dade County v. Acme Specialty Corporation, Fla.App., 292 So. 2d 378, and involves the validity of a City of Miami ordinance banning the sale of fireworks within that municipality. The instant litigation was commenced subsequent to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rinzler v. Carson, Fla. 1972, 262 So. 2d 661, the appe…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1972)
- Applied Research Labs. OF Fla., Inc. v. Porter Homer, 249 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Delano v. Dade Cnty., 287 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1973)