R. L. LETT, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA BARBERS SANITARY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
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.
This case reviews a violation of a Florida statute concerning barber apprentices. The court quashed the Sanitary Commission's ruling, finding that the statute's language regarding the ratio of apprentices to master barbers did not require a master barber's constant presence for each apprentice.
The court held that the statute's language regulates the ratio of apprentices to master barbers and does not require a master barber to be present at all times for each apprentice. Therefore, the petitioner did not violate the statute.
[1] A statute stating that "only one apprentice shall be employed for each master barber" prohibits the employment of more than one apprentice per master barber, but does not…
[2] The intent of a statute limiting the number of apprentices per master barber is to regulate the ratio of apprentices to masters, not to mandate constant direct supervisio…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“This section reads as follows: “No registered apprentice may independently practice barbering, but he may as an apprentice do any or all of the acts constituting the practice of barbering under the immediate personal supervision of a registered barber or registered barber teacher; provided, that only one apprentice shall be employed for each master barber and that there be no more than three apprentice barbers in any one licensed barber shop.””
This quote provides the text of the statute at issue in the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner, a master barber, was charged with violating a statute requiring one apprentice per master barber. The violation occurred when one master b…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner is a master barber. He and his wife own a barber salon in Tallahassee, Florida. He has two master barbers employed together with two apprentice barbers. On July 27, 1970, petitioner left his shop with two master barbers and two apprentice barbers, with the master barbers to be in charge. During the afternoon, one of the master barbers left to get something to eat and left only one master barber and the two apprentices.
During the time one of the master barbers was out of petitioner’s barber shop, respondent, Florida Barbers Sanitary Commission, came in and charged the owner-petitioner with violation of Section 476.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This section reads as follows:
“No registered apprentice may independently practice barbering, but he may as an apprentice do any or all of the acts constituting the practice of barbering under the immediate personal supervision of a registered barber or registered barber teacher; provided, that only one apprentice shall be employed for each master barber and that there be no more than three apprentice barbers in any one licensed barber shop.”
A hearing was held in Tampa, Florida, and petitioner was found guilty of said violation. This petition for writ of certiorari followed.
*336The only question presented to us is the construction of Florida Statutes 476.-03, F.S.A., wherein it is provided that “only one apprentice shall be employed for each master barber.” This language, in our opinion, clearly says that only one apprentice shall be employed and does not say that one master barber must be present in the shop at all times for each apprentice. We do not believe that the intent of the statute was to prevent the above-mentioned occurrence from happening; rather, it was to prevent the employment of more than one apprentice for each master barber. To construe the statute otherwise would be an absurdity.
For this reason certiorari is granted in this cause and the ruling of the Florida Barbers Sanitary Commission is hereby quashed.
PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.