STATE OF FLORIDA, ON THE RELATION OF ALVIN D. KAPLAN, APPELLANT,
v.
C. E. DEE, C. PAUL VICKERS AND E. L. MATTHEWS, AS THE BOARD OF VETERINARY EXAMINERS FOR THE STATE OF 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.
Alvin Kaplan, a veterinarian licensed in Massachusetts and Virginia, challenged the Florida Board of Veterinary Examiners' denial of his application to take the licensing examination because his veterinary degree was from Middlesex University, which was not recognized by the American Veterinary Medical Association. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the requirement as a valid exercise of legislative police power and not an unlawful delegation of authority.
The requirement that applicants be graduates of a veterinary college recognized by the American Veterinary Medical Association is a valid and reasonable educational standard within the legislature's police power and does not constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative authority. Similar requirements have been upheld for pharmacy, dentistry, and law.
“the legislature may under the police power prescribe educational standards for those who desire to practice certain professions in this State”
Establishes the constitutional authority for the Board's requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKaplan earned an A.B. from New York University in 1939 and a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree from Middlesex University in Massachusetts in 1945. …
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 Delegation Of Legislative Power cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellant secured an A. B. degree from New York University, New York City, in 1939. He secured the degree of Doctor of Veterinary Medicine from Middlesex University at Waltham, Massachusetts, in 1945. He was licensed to practice veterinary medicine and surgery in Virginia and Massachusetts and has in fact practiced in the latter state since 1946. His application to take the examination to practice in this State was denied by the Board of Veterinary Examiners March 1952. This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of Leon County, overruling a motion for peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the Board of Veterinary Examiners to admit him to the examination notwithstanding the answer. The alternative writ was discharged.
Appellees abandoned in the court below and admit here that they do not contend that a certificate of proficiency in the basic sciences is a condition precedent to qualify one taking the examination to be licensed to practice veterinary medicine and surgery under the laws of Florida. This point disposed of, the only point for our determination is whether or not the requirement of Section 474.04, F.S.A., that one who takes the veterinary examination in this State shall be “a graduate of a veterinary college recognized by the American Veterinary Medical Association” constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power. Florida .Statutes, § 474.04, F.S.A., requires that all applicants who desire to take the examination to practice veterinary medicine and surgery in Florida shall make application in writing to the Board of Veterinary Examiners on blanks furnished by it, which application shall be accompanied by the required fee, the name of the School of Veterinary Medicine from which he graduated and that such school must be one recognized by the American Veterinary Medical Association. The Board of Veterinary Examiners of this State denied petitioner’s application to take the examination because the School of Veterinary Medicine of Middlesex University, Waltham, Massachusetts, was not among those qualified and recognized as meeting the standards prescribed by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Appellant contends that such a requirement is arbitrary and invalid in that it constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power. We do not think there is any merit to this contention. We have approved the doctrine that the legislature may under the police power prescribe educational standards for those who desire to practice certain professions in this State. Such standards are well understood and recognized and to require that one who applies to take the veterinary examination in Florida be a “graduate of a veterinary college recognized by the American Veterinary Medical Association” is a reasonable and lawful requirement. Similar requirements have been imposed on those who take the examination to practice pharmacy, dentistry and law, they have a well-recognized meaning by those engaged in such professions or. businesses and have been upheld. Attwood v. State ex rel. Newman, Fla., 53 So. 2d 825; Spencer v. Hunt, 109 Fla. 248, 147 So. 282; Ex parte State Board of Law Examiners of Florida, 141 Fla. 706, 193 So. 753, and Petition of Florida State Bar Association, 134 Fla. 851, 186 So. 280. These cases are in point with the case at bar and in our view serve as a complete answer to the question raised here. See also Allen v. State Board of Veterinarians, 72 R.I. 372, 52 A. 2d 131; 41 Am.Jur., p. 164, Sec. 35; 70 C.J.S., Physicians and Surgeons, § 12, p. 849.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
MATHEWS, C. J., and SEBRING and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaudet v. Fla. Bd. of Prof'l Eng'rs, 900 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…f supervisory responsibility over admissions to a profession; nor is it the unlawful delegation of authority to a private body. See Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re Barry Univ. Sch. of Law, 821 So. 2d 1050 (Fla.2002); see also State ex rel. Kaplan v. Dee, 77 So. 2d 768 (Fla.1955) (veterinary medicine). However, the legislature did not include such a requirement in the statute in question, and, therefore, the Board’s creation of such a requirement exceeds the legislature’s statutory delegation of authority. See Dep…
Authorities Cited
- Spencer v. Hunt, 109 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1933)
- Petition State Bar Ass'n Re: Proposed Court Rules, 134 Fla. 851 (Fla. 1938)
- State ex rel. T. D. Proctor v. Cone, 141 Fla. 606 (Fla. 1940)
- Ex Parte: State Bd. of Law Exam'rs, 141 Fla. 706 (Fla. 1940)