Florida Statute 484.006 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 484
DISPENSING OF OPTICAL DEVICES AND HEARING AIDS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 484.006

484.006 Certain rules prohibited.—

(1) No rule or policy of the board shall prohibit any optician from offering a discount in any form or manner in conjunction with the practice of opticianry or from advertising, either directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever, any definite or indefinite price or credit terms on prescriptive or corrective lenses, frames, complete prescriptive or corrective glasses, or other opticianry service.

(2) No rule or policy of the board shall prohibit any optician from practicing jointly with optometrists or allopathic or osteopathic physicians licensed in this state.

(3) No rule or policy of the board shall prohibit the sale of spectacles for reading purposes; toy glasses; goggles or sunglasses consisting of plano white, plano colored, or plano tinted glasses; or readymade nonprescription glasses; nor shall anything in this part be construed to affect in any way the manufacturing and sale of plastic or glass artificial eyes or any person engaged in the manufacturing or sale of plastic or glass artificial eyes.

(4) No rule or policy of the board shall prohibit any optician licensed under this part from engaging in the practice of opticianry with, or in the employ of, any partnership, corporation, lay body, organization, group, or individual.

(5) No rule or policy of the board shall prohibit the location of offices or branch offices by an optician.

(6) No rule or policy of the board shall prohibit the practice of opticianry under a trade name or service mark.

History.—ss. 1, 5, ch. 79-275; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 11, 12, ch. 86-254; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 118, ch. 2001-277.

F.S. 484.006 on Google Scholar

F.S. 484.006 on Casetext

Amendments to 484.006

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 484.006

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 484.006.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 484.006

Total Results: 11

Carter v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-05-24

Citation: 786 So. 2d 1173, 2001 WL 543657

Snippet: decision in Summers. See Carter II, 747 So.2d at 484. [6] In this case, the length of the sentence imposed

Cole Vision v. Dept. of Bus. and Prof.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1997-02-14

Citation: 688 So. 2d 404, 1997 WL 60865

Snippet: (1)(b) do not conflict with sections 463.014(1)(c), 484.006(2) and 455.201(4). Section 463.014(1)(c), Florida

United States Shoe Corp. v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Opticianry

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-04-11

Citation: 578 So. 2d 376, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3801

Snippet: the proposed rule. On the other hand, Section 484.006 makes it clear that the rulemaking power granted

US Shoe Corp. v. DEPT. OF PRO. REG.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-04-11

Citation: 578 So. 2d 376

Snippet: the proposed rule. On the other hand, Section 484.006 makes it clear that the rulemaking power granted

Frieder v. Prince

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1975-02-18

Citation: 308 So. 2d 132

Snippet: opticians that he was in violation of Fla. Stat. § 484.06, F.S.A. (entitled "Optical Dispensing; unlawful

R & R LOUNGE, INC. v. Wynne

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-11-27

Citation: 286 So. 2d 13

Snippet: Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 89 S.Ct. 518, 21 L.Ed.2d 474, 484. [6] United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103

Healy v. Atwater

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1972-11-21

Citation: 269 So. 2d 753

Snippet: 326; Ferguson v. Rafferty, 128 Pa. 337, 18 A. 484, 6 L.R.A. 33." This rule was reaffirmed in Jackson

CONTINENTAL MTG. INVEST. v. Village by the Sea, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1971-09-09

Citation: 252 So. 2d 833

Snippet: comment which follows Rule 1.21 in 30 F.S.A. at page 484.[6] [6] `Scope of the Discovery `The scope of the

Parker v. Parker

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1966-02-03

Citation: 182 So. 2d 498

Snippet: comment which follows Rule 1.21 in 30 F.S.A. at page 484.[6] A dependent wife and child in a divorce suit necessarily

Wise v. Quina

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1965-04-20

Citation: 174 So. 2d 590

Snippet: 326; *597 Ferguson v. Rafferty, 128 Pa. 337, 18 A. 484, 6 L.R.A. 33." Applying this rule, the Supreme Court

Mallard v. Ewing

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1935-04-05

Citation: 164 So. 674, 121 Fla. 654, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1628

Snippet: Ferguson v. Rafferty, 128 Pa. St. 337, 18 Atl. Rep. 484, 6 L.R.A. 33. The purchase of the apartments and furniture