THE SOCIETY FOR THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID B. WALRATH, 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 Society for the Welfare of Animals appealed an injunction prohibiting it from advertising veterinary services, arguing it was not subject to veterinary licensing regulations and that the advertising restrictions violated free speech. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that a non-profit corporation employing licensed veterinarians cannot advertise veterinary medical services in ways that a licensed veterinarian could not advertise.
The court held that a non-profit corporation employing a licensed veterinarian cannot be permitted to advertise veterinary medical services. The court distinguished professional service advertising from product advertising and found that the advertising restrictions did not violate the Society's free speech rights.
[1] A non-profit corporation employing licensed veterinarians may be enjoined from advertising veterinary medical services if such advertising would violate statutes and rule…
[2] Advertising of veterinary medical services by a corporation employing licensed veterinarians is subject to the same ethical limitations as advertising by individual licen…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a corporation [even though non-profit] which employs a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine should not be permitted to advertise veterinary medical services”
Establishes the core holding that non-profit corporations cannot advertise veterinary services even if they employ licensed veterinarians
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Society for the Welfare of Animals, a non-profit corporation, was advertising veterinary services including spaying and neutering of animals. A tr…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The instant action was begun in the trial court to enjoin The Society for the Welfare of Animals, Inc., a non-profit corporation, from advertising what was alleged to be services of veterinary medicine. Upon final hearing, the trial judge entered an order which reads, in part, as follows:
* * * * * *
“It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the defendant, his employees, servants, agents, and members be, and they are hereby, perpetually enjoined and restrained from all objectionable advertising, including but not limited to, advertising on television, radio, and newspapers in violation of F.S. 474 and Rules implemented thereunder as applied to the practice of Veterinary medicine. It is the purpose and intent of this Order to restrain and limit all advertising by the defendant to that which may ethically be done by a Veterinarian duly licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The defendant is specifically restrained from the advertising of fees charged for services or the advertising of so called Tow cost’ fees for services.”
The Society appeals and urges error in that they are not a corporation subject to the provisions of Ch. 474 and, further, it was error for the trial court to prohibit the advertising as same constituted an infringement on its constitutional right of freedom of speech, citing Stadnik v. Shell’s City, Inc., 140 So. 2d 871 (Fla.1962); Florida Board of Pharmacy v. Webb’s City, Inc., 219 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1969); Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976). We disagree, and affirm.
Pursuant to § 474.031(ll)(c), Florida Statutes (1975), the services performed by the doctors of veterinary medicine employed by the Society were, in fact, the practice of veterinary medicine by the spaying ánd neutering of animals. It is conceded that a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine could not so advertise and, therefore, a corporation [even though non-profit] which employs a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine should not be permitted to advertise veterinary medical services. We find a distinction in the prohibition against advertisements of professional services, as contrasted with the advertisement of the cost of prescription drugs, the sale of which is of products prepared by others in most instances. Therefore, we find the Florida cases and the Virginia case cited by the appellant to be distinguishable.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the limited injunction imposed by the trial judge be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Soc'y FOR the Welf. OF Animals, Inc. v. Walrath, 364 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…PER CURIAM. Whereas, the judgment and decision of this, court in this cause was filed March 15, 1977 and reported in 343 So. 2d 934, wherein the final decree of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida was affirmed; and Whereas, said decision and final decree was declined review by the Supreme Court of Florida by certiorari proceedings,…
Authorities Cited
- Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (U.S. 1976)
- Stadnik v. Shell's City, Inc., 140 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1962)
- Fla. Bd. OF Pharmacy v. Webb's City, Inc., 219 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1969)