Singer v. Scarborough, 20 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1944). · Go Syfert
Search
Singer v. Scarborough, 20 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1944). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: City of Miami v. Forbes (flacirct11mia, 1960-11-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1945 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1945 1985 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" City of Miami v. Forbes
Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty. · 1960 · signal: see · confidence high
See Singer v. Scarborough (Fla. 1944), 20 So. 2d 126 ; City of Miami v. Kichinko (Fla. 1945), 22 So. 2d 627 .
discussed Cited "see" City of Wilton Manors v. Starling (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1960 · signal: see · confidence high
See Singer v. Scarborough, 155 Fla. 357 , 20 So.2d 126 ; City of Miami v. Kichinko, 156 Fla. 128 , 22 So.2d 627 ; Fleeman v. Vocelle, 160 Fla. 898 , 37 So.2d 164 ." The Court then concluded that since the City of Miami Beach had made no showing that it was authorized to restrict vendors in the class of Goldworm to sales from "service bars" only, the provisions of the Miami Beach ordinance attempting to do so were invalid and of no effect.
discussed Cited "see" Makos v. Prince (2×)
Fla. · 1953 · signal: see · confidence high
See Singer v. Scarborough, 155 Fla. 357 , 20 So.2d 126 ; City of Miami v. Kichinko, 156 Fla. 128 , 22 So.2d 627 ; Fleeman v. Vocelle, 160 Fla. 898 , 37 So.2d 164 ." *676 In other words, the city had the right by zoning to establish zones where alcoholic beverages could, or could not, be sold, but had no express or implied authority to prescribe or fix the manner, or method, of sale different from that fixed by the general law, to-wit, by the drink, or in containers, for consumption, on or off the premises where sold.
discussed Cited "see" Simpson v. Goldworm (2×)
Fla. · 1952 · signal: see · confidence high
See Singer v. Scarborough, 155 Fla. 357 , 20 So.2d 126 ; City of Miami v. Kichinko, 156 Fla. 128 , 22 So.2d 627 ; Fleeman v. Vocelle, 160 Fla. 898 , 37 So.2d 164 .
William D. Singer, Esther Singer, L. E. Singer, William S. Stone, and Harold I. Stone, Co-Partners Doing Business as Stone's Liquor Stores, and Paul Kichinko
v.
E. W. Scarborough, as Director of the State Beverage Department.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Dec 19, 1944.
20 So. 2d 126
Hoffman Durant and J. Lewis Hall, for relators. J. Turner Butler, for respondent. Ausley, Collins Truett, as amicus curiae for the City of Miami.
Terrell, Buford, Brown, Chapman, Thomas, Adams, Sebring.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
TERRELL, J.:

Relators applied to the tax collector of Dade County for a . license or permit to sell intoxicating beverages. The tax collector and the county commissioners approved the application but respondent declines to issue the license because a permit - has not been secured from the City of Miami as provided by Ordinance 2161 of the City. Alternative writ of mandamus was issued by this Court commanding respondent to approve[*358] or disapprove the action of the board of county commissioners and grant the permit.

We are confronted with a motion for peremptory writ notwithstanding the return to the alternative writ which shows that the license is withheld because the relators had not procured a permit from the City of Miami for the reason stated. From this, it follows that the only question presented is whether or not a permit or license from the City may be required as a condition precedent to granting a State license to sell intoxicating beverages.

We think this question must be answered in the negative. The State Beverage Act proceeds on the theory of permitting the sale of intoxicating beverages under rigid regulation. It does not attempt to limit the number of licenses that may be issued nor does it. give municipalities general power to regulate. It does vest in municipalities power to fix by ordinance hours of sale, location, and to prescribe certain sanitary regulations under which intoxicating beverages may be sold. It is shown that the Miami ordinance interposed has been declared invalid by the Circuit Court of Dade County and no appeal has been taken. It is also shown that petitioners have met every other requirement of the law for securing a permit. We have examined the cases relied on by the City büt they are not controlling.

The motion for peremptory writ notwithstanding, the return is accordingly granted.

It is so ordered.

BUFORD, C. J., BROWN, CHAPMAN, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.