STATE OF FLORIDA ON THE RELATION OF C. B. REESE, DOING BUSINESS AS TEMPLE TERRACE PUBLIC SERVICE,
v.
JERRY W. CARTER, WILBUR C. KING, AND RICHARD A. MACK, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA RAILROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
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 held that a special act creating a taxicab commission for Tampa could not constitutionally regulate taxicab operations in unincorporated territory outside the city limits, where those operations did not enter the city and were already subject to state regulation. The court granted a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring renewal of the petitioner's permit.
A municipality cannot validly regulate taxicab operations in unincorporated territory outside its corporate limits when those operations do not enter the city. The statute cannot be upheld as a police measure because it lacks a rational relation to public safety, health, morals, or welfare, and the area was already subject to adequate state supervision.
“Can we then say that this attempted manner of regulation bears any relation to the public safety, health, morals or welfare? We think not.”
Establishes the court's holding that the statute cannot be upheld as a valid police measure lacking rational relation to legitimate government interests.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner held a permit from the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission to operate a taxicab business in unincorporated Sulphur Springs, ad…
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 Municipal Regulation cases and more on FLexlaw
*181This cause comes on for final hearing upon motion for a peremptory writ notwithstanding respondents’ return.
Petitioner held a permit from the respondents to operate a taxicab business in the unincorporated community of Sulphur Springs, adjacent to the City of Tampa. In 1947 the Legislature enacted Chapter 24922, a special act to create a taxicab commission for the City of Tampa, with power to supervise and regulate the operation of taxicabs over the public highways of said city and the adjoining suburban territory to a distance of three miles from the city limits. Because of this act the respondents refused to renew petitioner’s permit.
We consider the question of whether the statute may be upheld as a police measure. We must recognize as a first premise that the taxicab business was not lacking in supervision or regulation in the affected area inasmuch as the general law placed that duty upon respondents. Can we then say that this attempted manner of regulation bears any relation to the public safety, health, morals or welfare? We think not. These- taxicabs did not enter the corporate limits of the city; therefore, the special act is inapplicable to the territory outside the corporate limits of the city when applied as here to an operation exclusively outside the corporate limit. This situation is different from the cases where the outside regulation was essential to preserve order and restrain a nuisance within the confines of the city. This is not a case where the legislation is addressed to a legitimate end. See State ex rel. Sweat v. Turpentine & Rosin Factors, Inc., 112 Fla. 428 So. 617; State ex rel. Municipal Bond & Investment Co., Inc., v. Knott et al., 114 Fla. 120, 154 So. 143; Board of Trustees of Falmouth v. Watson, 5 Bush (Ky.) 660; Town of Gower v. Agee, 128 Mo. App. 427, 107 S.W. 999; White v. City of Decatur, 225 Ala. 646, 144 So. 873, 86 A.L.R. 914; Malone v. Williams, 118 Tenn. 390, 103 S.W. 798, 121 Am. St. Rep. 1002; 55 A.L.R., page 1182, (text page 1183).
It follows that the return by the Railroad Commission setting up the existence of the statute and urging it as a defense for not renewing the permit, is not sufficient; and that consequently the peremptory writ should be granted.
*182So ordered.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD, CHAPMAN,. SEBRING and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Pensacola v. King, 47 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1950)…an municipal officers. In fine, the Commission contends *320 that the effect of Chapter 24806 is to divest it of jurisdiction to regulate transportation in the area around Pensacola and vest that authority in the city. State ex rel. Reese v. Carter, 160 Fla. 180, 34 So. 2d 35, is relied on to support this contention. In State ex rel. Reese v. Carter this Court was confronted with Chapter 24992, Special Acts of 1947, which created a taxicab commission for the City of Tampa and clothed it with power to regul…
-
Eelbeck Milling Co. of Fla. v. Mayo, 86 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1956)…in favor of the validity of. legislative action in this important field, but also in favor of the validity of the regulations and actions of the health authorities.” Varholy v. Sweat, 153 Fla. 571, 15 So. 2d 267, 270; State ex rel. Reese v. Carter, 160 Fla. 180, 34 So. 2d 35; Miami Laundry Co. v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd., 134 Fla. 1, 183 So. 759, 119 A.L.R. 956. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 195, pp. 562-564. The amendatory act in question contains no express legislative finding of •the publi…
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. Mun. Bond & Inv. Co., Inc. v. Knott, 114 Fla. 120 (Fla. 1934)
- Sweat v. Turpentine & Rosin Factors, Inc., 112 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1933)