RAYMOND C. SCHNEIDER, EDWARD M. SAUNDERS AND J. PAUL GRANT, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, A STATE AGENCY, APPELLANTS,
v.
WALTER C. AIKEN, FRANCIS D'AMBRA, D. A. ACQUARO, EARLE RABB, L. R. FLEMING, JAY GUITTIEREZ, AND CALVIN H. BENEFIELD, LICENSED CHIROPRACTORS, 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.
The Florida Board of Chiropractic Examiners appealed a circuit court decision finding certain advertising regulations invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding that some regulations were constitutional while reversing its determination that other provisions were unconstitutional, upholding the Board's regulatory discretion.
The statute and rule are constitutionally sound. The discretion granted to the Board by the statute is within reasonable limits, and the rule does not reflect any abuse of that discretion.
“the statute, from whence springs the rule, granted certain powers to the Board without explicating appropriate standards according to which the exercise of those powers should be limited”
Describes the lower court's constitutional rationale for invalidating the statute and rule
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChiropractors filed a class action seeking declaratory judgment to determine the validity and proper application of Board regulations concerning adver…
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 Constitutional Validity Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellees, individual chiropractors, and plaintiffs below, instituted a class action for declaratory judgment to determine the validity, meaning, and proper application of regulations concerning advertising promulgated by the appellant Board, defendant below. At the conclusion of the declaratory judgment proceedings, the Honorable Hugh Taylor, Circuit Judge, Second Judicial Circuit, decreed that Fla. Stats. §§ 460.11(2) (c) and 460.13(3) (g) 2, F.S.A. were constitutionally valid, but that Fla.Stat. § 460.13(3) (g) 1, F.S.A. and Ch. 100-2, Rule 2.01, Fla.Admin.Code, were invalid and unconstitutional. By direct appeal the appellant Board now contests Judge Taylor’s finding that the above statute and rule are unconstitutional. Fla. Const. Art. V, Section 4(2), F.S.A.
The essence of Judge Taylor’s ruling regarding the statute and rule in question was that the statute, from whence springs the rule, granted certain powers to the Board without explicating appropriate standards according to which the exercise of those powers should be limited. We need not go further here than to say that after careful review of the statute and the rule, we are satisfied that both are constitutionally sound. The discretion granted to the Board by the statute is within reasonable limits, and the rule does not reflect any abuse of that discretion.
*194Appellant also complains of certain other rulings by Judge Taylor, but we think that, aside from the constitutionality issue discussed above, all other matters were correctly decided.
Accordingly the decree below is affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions that the cause be remanded for disposition in accordance with our opinion and judgment.
It is so ordered.
DREW, Acting C. J., BOYD, J., and SPECTOR, District Court Judge, concur.
THORNAL, J., concurs specially.
(concurring specially).
I concur in judgment of reversal.
THORNAL, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in judgment of reversal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barad v. Fla. Bd. of Pharmacy, 33 Fla. Supp. 91 (Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct. 1969)…mergency, and “for other good and sufficient reason”. The court found that hardship and emergency were adequate standards but struck down “for other good and sufficient reason” as having no standard. The recent case of Schneider v. Aiken (Fla. 1969) 227 So. 2d 193, which this court finds distinguishable from the instant action, held that the regulations of the board of chiropractic examiners in regard to advertising were constitutional as was the statute granting said board such power even though said statute…