J. R. HUNTER, JR., AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE BEVERAGE DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DARLENE W. BULLINGTON, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a declaratory judgment that permitted a married minor under 21 years of age to work as a waitress dispensing alcoholic beverages. The court held that state law prohibits employment of anyone under 21 in establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold, regardless of marital status or removal of other disabilities of nonage.
A person under 21 years of age may not be employed to dispense or work in connection with the sale of alcoholic beverages, regardless of marital status. While marriage removes certain disabilities of nonage under F.S. § 743.03, it does not remove the prohibition in F.S. § 450.071 against employment of minors in establishments where alcoholic beverages are manufactured or sold.
“F. S. § 743.03, F.S.A., removes the disabilities of nonage of all female minors who are "married, who have been married, or who may hereafter become married, including those divorced or hereafter divorced".”
Establishes the statutory provision that the trial court relied upon to permit the minor's employment despite age restrictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDarlene Bullington, a female minor, married in February 1953 and subsequently entered an oral employment agreement to work as a waitress at a drive-in…
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 Declaratory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellee, a minor of the female persuasion, was married in February 1953, and in September thereafter entered into an oral agreement with Foods, Inc., to work as a waitress in Sandspur Drive-In where foods and alcoholic beverages are dispensed for consumption on the premises. Shortly after her employment the State Beverage Department preferred charges against Foods, Inc., for having in .'its employment a person under twenty-one years of age in violation of F.S. § 562.13, F.S.A., Foods," Inc., declined to discharge appellee, absent an order of a court of competent jurisdiction holding that her employment was illegal. Appellee. then instituted this suit for Declaratory Decree to. determine whether or not. appellee as an employee of Foods, Inc., .could legally serve alcoholic beverages as such employee. The circuit judge answered this question in the affirmative. Defendants have appealed from that decree.
F.S. § 562.13, F.S.A., declares it unlawful for any vendor of alcoholic beverages under the law of this State to employ any person under twenty-one years of age. F. S. § 743.03, F.S.A., removes the disabilities of nonage of all female minors who are “married, who have been married, or who may hereafter become married, including those divorced or hereafter divorced”. Section 450.23, F.S. 1951, now F.S. § 450.071, F.S.A., makes it unlawful if any “person under twenty-one years of age, whether such person’s disabilities of nonage have been removed by marriage or otherwise, shall be employed, permitted or suffered to work in, about, or in connection with, any poolroom, billiard room, brewery, saloon, barroom, or any place where alcoholic beverages are manufactured or sold”.
The trial court evidently reasoned that F.S. § 743.03, F.S.A., had the effect of removing all the disabilities of nonage but we construe it to apply only insofar as they are affected by marriage. It has no reference to the disabilities of persons employed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, whether male or female, if they are under the age of twenty-one. F.S. § 450.071, F.S.A., has to do with the same subject matter and is a positive injunction against the employment of those under twenty-one to “work in, about, or in connection with”. any place where alcoholic beverages are manufactured or sold. The prohibition could hardly be clearer or more specific. In fact we think the terms of the statute-are so definite and positive that they defy interpretation. It would be an example of supererogation to fortify this pronouncement with a discussion of the rules governing statutory construction.
Appellee being under twenty-one years - of age, Foods, Inc., was prohibited from employing her to dispense alcoholic beverages. For the reasons so stated, the decree appealed from must be and is hereby reversed.
Reversed.
ROBERTS, C. J, and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guarniere v. Henderson, 171 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…60 So. 792 (1913). . Roschen v. Ward, 279 U.S. 337, 339, 49 S.Ct. 336, 73 L.Ed. 722 (1928). . Riley v. Holmer, 100 Fla. 938, 131 So. 330 (1930). . Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bridgeman, 133 Fla. 195, 182 So. 911 (1938). . Hunter v. Bullington, 74 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1954).…
-
State v. Robinette, 652 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…move protection for a child victim who was emancipated through marriage). Accordingly, we hold that removal of disabilities of nonage is not a defense to the acts prohibited by section 827.071(2), Florida Statutes. See, e.g., Hunter v. Bullington, 74 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1954) (removal of disabilities of nonage for married minor female did not permit vendor of alcoholic beverages to employ her contrary to the statute making it illegal for vendors to employ persons under 21 years of age); State v. Plude, 621 A.…