CopyCited 392 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...Pursuant to Rule 4.6 of the Florida Appellate Rules we are responding to questions certified to this Court by the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Volusia County. See Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka,
149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963). The questions are: 1. Does the enactment of Section
561.20(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes, by Chapter 72-230, Laws of Florida, which states in pertinent part: "(2)(a) No such limitation of the number of licenses as herein provided shall henceforth prohibit the issuance of a special license to: ......
...of the Beverage Department existing since 1969 which required special license restaurants to derive at least 30% of all proceeds from food and non-alcoholic beverages. To determine the legislative intent we look to the plain language of the statute. Section 561.20(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes, speaks in terms of future licenses only: "No such limitation of the number of licenses as herein provided shall henceforth prohibit the issuance of a special license to: 3....
...Knight Bros. Paper Co.,
118 So.2d 664 (Fla.1st DCA 1960). The reason for this rule is that the Legislature must be assumed to know the meaning of words and to have expressed its intent by the use of the words found in the statute. In the same subsection of Section
561.20(2)(a)3, the Legislature made three direct references to the treatment of existing licenses....
...Respondents argue that if this Court interprets the Act in favor of petitioners' contentions, then a great deal of mischief will result because petitioners' licenses would contemporaneously with the Court's ruling be converted to "quota" licenses contrary to Section 561.20(1), Florida Statutes....
...This argument is without merit for the following reason. Respondents have promulgated "bona fide restaurant" requirements for special licenses in Chapter 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code. "Quota" licenses are not held to these requirements. Even if the 51% requirements of Section 561.20(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes, is not applied to petitioners, the Chapter 72-3.15, Florida Administrative Code, requirements save petitioners' licenses from effective conversion into quota licenses....
0 red0 yellow39 green0 procedural
CopyCited 51 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...§ 554.27, providing for a foreign trade zone within the Trade Center; Chapter 29827, Acts of 1955, F.S.A. §
210.20, providing for payment to the Trade Center of cigarette taxes collected on cigarettes sold at retail on property of the Trade Center, less 2 1/2% for administration; Chapter 29829, Acts of 1955, F.S.A. §
561.20, amending Sec.
561.20, Florida Statutes, to permit the issuance of not exceeding three liquor licenses to qualified applicants within the Trade Center....
0 red0 yellow5 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityPoe (1997)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ority. We affirm the order of the hearing officer. Chapter 565, Florida Statutes, limits the number of liquor licenses to be issued in Florida. However, certain businesses and enterprises are exempt from such limitations if they meet the criteria of Section 561.20(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes (1981), which provides in pertinent part: (2)(a) No such limitation of the number of licenses as herein provided shall henceforth prohibit the issuance of a special license to: * * * * * * 3....
...east 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages... . Rule 7A-3.15(3) contains criteria which DABT uses to determine whether a special restaurant licensee is operating a bona fide restaurant within the meaning of Section 561.20(2)(a), supra....
...DABT's general rule-making power stems from Section
561.11: (1) The division shall have full power and authority to make, adopt, amend, or repeal rules, regulations, or administrative orders to carry out the purposes of the Beverage Law... . Through Section
561.20(2)(a)3., the legislature has enumerated specific criteria for a special restaurant beverage license....
...larly prepared, served, or sold." Obviously, the correct statutory definition quoted above, which is in the disjunctive, is erosive rather than supportive of DABT's position. Finally, it has not been shown that rejection of DABT's contention that Section 561.20(2)(a)3....
...Human Development Center,
413 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage v. Huddle, Inc.,
342 So.2d 140, 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), this court said: It has always been the legislative intent that a special restaurant license under Section
561.20(2) was available only when there was a bona fide substantial restaurant operation primarily engaged in the service of food and nonalcoholic beverages....
0 red0 yellow13 green1 procedural
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...d ... shall not apply to existing licenses nor to the renewal or transfer of such licenses but upon the revocation of any existing license no renewal thereof or new license therefor shall be issued contrary to the limitations herein prescribed. F.S. § 561.20(3), F.S.A....
0 red0 yellow8 green0 procedural
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...nates in favor of the class of which the particular licensee here involved is a member. For example, the Legislature itself has created various classifications regarding liquor licenses involving hotels, motels, restaurants, golf clubs and the like. Section 561.20, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
0 red0 yellow10 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityBiddulph (1996)phrase: "rule_authority"
Cited as authorityMacK (1996)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...(Shell Harbor) appeals from a final order of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco denying its application for a change in the status of its special hotel liquor license to a special restaurant license (SRX). We affirm. The operative statute herein, Section 561.20(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1983) provides that a special restaurant license may be issued to an applicant which 1) is a restaurant, 2) having 2500 square feet of service area, 3) is equipped to serve 150 persons full-course meals at tab...
0 red0 yellow2 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityCohen (2012)phrase: "rule_authority"
Cited as authorityMoore (1988)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...The amended complaint reveals that there were accommodations to serve 200 or more patrons, that the restaurant contained more than 4,000 square feet of space, that it contained all necessary equipment to serve its patrons, and in other respects met the requirements of Section 561.20(2), Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A....
...enied under ordinances Nos. 720 and 1014, supra, which in the view of the Chancellor, were properly enacted pursuant to Chapter 13972, Special Laws of Florida 1929, as amended. Appellant Davidson asks us to reverse the Chancellor because in her view Section 561.20(2, 4), Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A., set up a special class of restaurant licenses which under the general Beverage Law then in effect could not be included within municipal population quota limitations, the City Charter provisions notwithstanding....
...ood v. City of Jacksonville, Fla. 1955,
80 So.2d 443. It was there held that a 1949 special act applicable to the City of Jacksonville, for all practical purposes identical with the 1947 Coral Gables Act, supra, would not supersede the provisions of Section
561.20(2, 4), Florida Statutes 1953, F.S.A., which authorized so-called special licenses in restaurants of certain sizes....
...cial Act) made provision for special hotel licenses but did not include the special type of restaurant license as an exception to the population quota. It was the view of the majority of the Supreme Court that under the then prevailing provisions of Section 561.20(2) and (4), Florida Statutes 1953, F.S.A., liquor licenses could properly be limited on a population quota basis within a municipality except as to *707 those special types of licenses such as these restaurant licenses which under the general act were reserved for general state-wide regulation. However, the decision in the Abood case is not applicable or controlling here. This is so because subsequent to the filing of the present suit, but before the entry of the final decree the legislature amended § 561.20(4), Fla....
...ity's charter by which issuance of a restaurant liquor license on the basis applied for was interdicted. At the time the Abood case was decided, and when the present application was made and the suit for declaratory decree was filed, subsection 4 of § 561.20 of the Beverage Law (Chapter 561, Fla....
...herewith." The effective date of that amendment was January 1, 1958. This was expressly provided for by § 3 of Chapter 57-773 as amended and clarified by § 1 of Chapter 57-1991, Laws of Florida, Extra.Sess. 1957, now appearing as subsection 4A of § 561.20, Fla....
...957. The final decree which dismissed the cause was entered on July 11, 1958. Thus the change in the law above referred to occurred during the pendency of the suit, and was in effect at the time of the rendition of the final decree. We will refer to § 561.20(4) as it read at the time of the commencement of the suit as the earlier law, and to the section as amended, effective January 1, 1958, as the present law....
...ense under the rule of Abood v. City of Jacksonville, Fla. 1955,
80 So.2d 443. The appellee city thereafter made no changes in its municipal ordinance. The majority sustains the decree of the Chancellor with the view that when the decree was entered Section
561.20(4), Florida Statutes, as amended, F.S.A., had become effective on January 1, 1958....
0 red0 yellow5 green0 procedural
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...On March 29, 1976, the hearing officer published his recommended order that the administrative complaint against Harvey be dismissed. In support of this recommendation, the hearing officer found that the division had failed to present any admissible evidence that Harvey had violated any provision of Section 561.20, Florida Statutes, and that it also failed to offer evidence that Harvey even held a beverage license issued by the State....
0 red0 yellow1 green1 procedural
Cert. deniedLewis (1982)phrase: "cert. denied"
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...of Moorey, Seals, Garvin & Tripp, Fort Myers, for appellant. *1287 Louisa E. Hargrett and Janice G. Scott, Dept. of Business Regulation, Tallahassee, for appellee. WENTWORTH, Judge. Appellant, the holder of a special beverage license issued pursuant to §
561.20(2)(a)3, is seeking review of a final order of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco which found it guilty of violating §
561.20 and §
561.15(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A-3.15....
...rcentage had been less than 51% of its total sales. On August 9, 1982, the Division served Harry's with a notice to show cause why its license should not be disciplined for violation of the Beverage laws. The notice alleged that Harry's had violated §
561.20 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 7A3.15 on two occasions by failing to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course meals had been discontinued. §
561.20(2)(a)3; FACR 7A-3.15(1). A third charge alleged, after amendment, that the principal business of the licensed premises was not the serving of bona fide meals, and that the licensee did not meet the requirements of §
561.20, i.e., that Harry's was operating in violation of the beverage laws by failing to derive 51% of its gross revenues from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. The charge also cited §
561.15(3)(c). [2] A formal hearing was held on March 16, 1983, and the hearing officer entered a recommended order finding that appellant had violated §
561.20(2)(a)3 by continuing to serve alcoholic beverages after the hours of serving food had elapsed, and by failing to derive 51% of its gross revenues from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages for the period of January through June 1982, as charged in the Notice to Show Cause....
...a restaurant during the charged period. Second, in imposing the penalty for the violations, the Division required appellant to produce records demonstrating that for the period June 1, 1982, through July 31, 1983, Harry's met the 51% requirement of § 561.20(2)(a)3 and that "[f]ailing such showing, said license ......
...a finding of fact. [4] As such, it is an improper rejection of the hearing officer's finding of fact since the officer's finding is supported by the record. §
120.57(1)(b)9, Florida Statutes. Because the parties agree that appellant met all of the §
561.20 requirements for a special license except the 51% requirement, and because the Division failed to prove non-compliance with that requirement, the finding that appellant was in violation as alleged in Count III is reversed....
...her than the hamburger and cheeseburger plates. [2] Verbatim, the amended third count alleged: The principal business of the licensed premises is not the serving of full course, bona fide meals and the licensee does not meet the requirements of sec. 561.20, Fla....
0 red0 yellow3 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityGoin (1995)phrase: "rule_authority"
Cited as authorityLavernia (1993)phrase: "rule_authority"
Cited as authorityBb (1989)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...s service bar consumption" in the relator's restaurant, located at the corner of Lincoln Road and Collins Avenue. The city had the power to grant or withhold special liquor licenses or permits in restaurants, beyond its population quota limitations. Section 561.20(4), Fla....
...e "D" district, and further alleged as follows: "VI. Your Petitioner represents that it is entitled to a special license for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on the premises consumption to its patrons in accordance with Florida Statutes Annotated 561.20(2) and it has complied with all the requirements thereof. Florida Statutes Annotated 561.20(2) as follows: "`No such limitation of the number of licenses as herein provided shall prohibit the issuance of a special license at any hotel, motel, or motor court of not less than fifty (50) guest rooms or to any restaurant containing all n...
...constitutional exercise of the police powers by the Council of the City of Miami Beach and is highly discriminating against the Petitioner. Furthermore said ordinance is unconstitutional in so far as it is in conflict with Florida Statutes Annotated 561.20 (2)....
...nd is discriminatory against your Petitioner and imposes requirements that in no way reasonably promote the public health, welfare, safety or morals of the citizens of Miami Beach and furthermore is in direct conflict with Florida Statutes Annotated 561.20(2)." The respondents' motion to quash the alternative writ was denied....
...This is so because the State Beverage Law provides that its restrictions as to population and its exceptions to population quotas, such as the created special licenses for hotels or restaurants, shall not prevail over contrary provisions relating thereto in municipalities. This was expressly provided for in § 561.20 (4), Fla....
...1955,
80 So.2d 443, that the provision of the State Beverage Law for a special license in restaurants should prevail over a contrary regulation within the City of Jacksonville, was no longer applicable because of the subsequent amendment to the beverage law, now appearing as subsection 4 of §
561.20, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. At the time the Abood case was decided, subsection 4 of §
561.20 of the Beverage Law provided the limitations of the state law would not affect or repeal any conflicting local or special act "relating to the limitation by population * * * of such licenses within any incorporated city." Effective January 1, 1958, subsection 4 of §
561.20 was amended to read that it would not affect or repeal such conflicting local provisions of incorporated cities which related not only to the limitations by population but to "exceptions or exemptions from such limitation by population of such licenses within any incorporated city." By virtue of that change in 1958 in subsection 4 of §
561.20, it was held in the Davidson case that the exception to population limitation created by the State Beverage Law which provided for special liquor licenses for restaurants meeting certain stated requirements could not be used as a basis for...
...om within the building." [3] It should be noted that while the special restaurant licenses provided for by the city code specified 480 capacity and 4,800 square feet, the State Beverage Law's provision for the restaurant exception or special license § 561.20(2) specified only 200 capacity and 4,000 square feet....
...Additionally, the affidavit showed relator claimed a right to the special restaurant liquor license under the exception as provided for in the State Beverage Law rather than as provided for in the city code, by stating: "That said restaurant complies with all of the terms and conditions of Florida Statutes Annotated
561.20 (2)." [5] §
562.45, Fla....
0 red0 yellow2 green0 procedural
Cited with approvalHardage (1981)phrase: "cited with approval"
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ess Regulation, Division of Beverage, State of Florida. In its answer, the Department of Business Regulation essentially took the position that the plaintiffs' liquor license had been issued pursuant to the provisions of the Beverage Law, Fla. Stat. § 561.20(2), F.S.A., and that it "was done after proof of compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Miami Beach; and approved by the Official of Miami Beach authorized to submit such an approval." The intervenors filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied by the *701 court....
...stock broker's office, a sundry shop, an art gallery shop, a beauty salon, an antiques and accessories shop, a ladies' wear shop, a photography studio, a men's wear shop, and a barber shop. A portion of the text *702 of the Beverage Law, Fla. Stat. § 561.20(2), F.S.A., also makes provision for hotels containing more than one hundred rooms....
0 red0 yellow3 green3 procedural
Cited as authoritySussman (1979)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...a Statutes, F.S.A. Chapter 29827, Acts of 1955, provided for payment to the authority of cigarette taxes collected on cigarettes sold at retail on property of the authority, less 2 1/2 percent for administration. Chapter 29829, Acts of 1955, amended § 561.20, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to permit the issuance of not to exceed three liquor licenses within the authority and Chapter 30990, Acts of 1955, authorized the City of Miami to grant and convey to the authority property in Dade County known a...
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityM.W. (2015)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...gislature cannot materially increase or decrease the total number of judges by modifying geographic boundaries of judicial circuits. This is not true of the question here presented concerning issuance of alcoholic beverage licenses. Florida Statutes § 561.20, F.S.A....
...Article X, respectively, (1) to appoint additional circuit judges as prescribed in Section 6(2), Article V, State Constitution, pursuant to the 1970 Federal decennial census population figures and (2), to issue alcoholic beverage licenses under F.S. section 561.20 F.S.A., pursuant to such census....
...t matter involved in this litigation for it to be named the proper respondent. Passing now to the second question, I agree with the majority's conclusion that issuance of beverage licenses under the new Federal Census figures as contemplated in F.S. section 561.20, F.S.A., must be postponed until the Legislature can review that subject pursuant to Section 8, Article X....
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityAgo (1979)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 160 Fla. 906, 1948 Fla. LEXIS 960
...ch limitation shall in no event be such as to prohibit the issuance of at least two such licenses in any such cities or towns or not less than three such licenses in any county as to territory lying without the limits of such cities or towns.” — Section 561.20, F.S; 1941, F.S.A.,' as amended by c....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 161269
...ovision. See §
561.02, Fla. Stat. (1997). Appellees alleged in their complaints that the licensing fees were inapplicable to them because the alcoholic beverage licenses which had been issued to them were not subject to the limitations contained in section
561.20(1), Florida Statutes....
...JOANOS, J., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section
561.19(5), Florida Statutes (1995) provides: A fee of $10,750 shall be collected from each person, firm, or corporation that is issued a new liquor license subject to the limitation imposed in s.
561.20(1) as provided in this section.......
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityOwnby (2009)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1959 Fla. LEXIS 1644
...There is no question of zoning, hours of sale, or sanitary or health conditions involved herein, nor does it appear that there is involved any violation of any municipal ordinance. On these facts the relator municipality states the question to be that: “Florida Statute 561.20(1) makes it unlawful for the beverage director to issue or transfer a liquor license into a municipality with less than 1251 population.” In support of its question the relator argues that the clear intent of § 561.20(1), F.S.A., is that there should be no new liquor license issued nor any existing license transferred into the limits of a municipality having less than 1,251 population....
...nsus, either federal or state, of such county or municipality; provided, however, that such limitation shall not prohibit the issuance of at least three licenses in any county that may approve the sale of intoxicating liquors in such county.” Sec. 561.20(1), Fla....
0 red1 yellow2 green0 procedural
LimitedJones (1968)phrase: "limited by"
Cited as authorityJaramillo (1973)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 339, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6293
dining required for its special license under section 561.-20(2)(a)3. Compare Anderson v. Department of Health
0 red0 yellow2 green0 procedural
AdoptedTicktin (1988)phrase: "adopted by"
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1955 Fla. LEXIS 3516
...the issuance of a liquor license to establishments such as that operated by appellant, regardless of the provisions of any local or special act, such *444 doubt is dispelled by a consideration of Chapter 28117, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1953, F.S.A. § 561.20 and note, which is the last expression of the Legislature on the subject and concerning which more will be said later....
...Said Section 7 also contained the provision, “no such limitation of the number of licenses as herein provided shall be applicable to * * * restaurant[s] * * * having accommodations for service of two hundred or more patrons at tables and occupying more than four thousand square feet of space * * *.” F.S.A. § 561.20....
0 red0 yellow1 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityCalvin (1975)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8391
...the policy of this director to carefully scruntinize the background and qualifications of each and every applicant for a retail liquor license with the intention of issuing said license only to the most qualified of individuals and/or corporations. Section 561.20, Florida Statutes, provides for the issuance of an unlimited number of beer and wine licenses, but only a limited number of quota liquor licenses are available on the basis of the population of the county in which the establishment is located....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...erage Department, was directed to revoke and annul a beverage license theretofore issued to the appellant Jones to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises in a restaurant operated by her. The case has to do with an interpretation of Section 561.20(2), Fla.Stat.1953, F. S.A., which provides that the population limitation as to the number of beverage licenses which may be issued, contained in subsection (1) of Section 561.20, shall not be applicable to “ * * * any restaurant containing all necessary equipment and supplies for, and serving full course meals regularly and having accommodations for service of two hundred or more patrons at tables and occupying more than four thousand square feet of space; * * (Emphasis added)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18759
OWEN, Judge. Petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of this state as a corporation for profit. Its application to the respondent for a Type II-C “Club” license provided for under Fla.Stat. §
561.20(7) (1973) was denied on the grounds that a corporation for profit is not qualified for this type beverage license. Petitioner seeks judicial review by certiorari pursuant to Fla.Stat. §
120.68 (Supp.1974). Fla.Stat. §
561.20(7) reads in pertinent part as follows: “(7) There shall be no limitation as to the number of licenses issued pursuant to §
565.02(4)....
...qualify as one “de *61 voted to promoting community development”. Thus, our decision here turns squarely upon our construction of the emphasized portion of Fla.Stat. § 561.-20(7) quoted above. Our reading of the emphasized portion of Fla.Stat. § 561.20(7) leads to the conclusion that it was the legislative intent (1) that the word “nonprofit” modify or describe the word “clubs” as well as the word “corporations”, and, (2) that, whether the applicant be a “nonprofit corporati...
...ereas a club devoted to promoting community development could qualify irrespective of whether it was a nonprofit club or a chib for profit. Yet this would be the result if we adopted the construction which petitioner advocates, namely that Fla.Stat. § 561.20(7) and Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4920
...The Complaint shows that Ren Morris, as Beverage Director of the State of Florida, and the County Commissioners of Hernando County, Florida, granted a license to sell intoxicating liquors in Her-nando County to defendants C. Hale Daniel and Audrey M. Daniel, husband and wife, d/b/a Hale’s Sundries under Section 561.20 F.S.A., and Chapter 65-1125, Laws of Florida, which was a population act that applied to Hernando County....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15242
MILLS, Judge. The issues raised by this appeal are: 1. Whether that provision of Section 561.20(2)(a)3, Flordia Statutes (1975), effective 18 April 1972, which requires a special restaurant alcoholic beverage licensee to derive 51% of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages applies to Huddle’s special restaurant license which was issued prior to 18 April 1972....
...The trial court concluded that the 51% requirement was not applicable but that the 30% requirement was applicable. The Division appealed both rulings. Huddle appealed the 30% ruling. The trial court correctly found that the 51% requirement was not applicable. Section 561.20(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), effective 18 April 1972, provides: “Any county in which special licenses were issued under the provisions of s. 561.20(2)(b) in effect prior to the effective date of this act shall continue to qualify for such licenses pursuant to those provisions in effect prior to the effective date of this act, and shall not be *142 affected by the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection.” The prior Section 561.20(2)(b), enacted in 1961 and in effect until 18 April 1972, provided: “This subsection shall not apply to any county having home rule under the constitution in which county the provisions of Section 561.20(2) in effect prior to the effective date of this law shall apply.” Dade County has home rule under the provisions of Article VIII, Section 6(e), Florida Constitution (1968), and had it under its predecessor, Article VIII, Section 11, Florida Constitution (1885) as amended. Although the current subsection (b) refers to “any county” in which special licenses were issued under the pre-1972 Section 561.20(2)(b), it then adds “shall continue to qualify for such licenses” pursuant to the prior law....
...ovisions. The objective of the exception is to permit licensees who have complied with the prior law to obtain renewals under the requirements of the prior law. Huddle comes within this construction. As a holder of a special restaurant license under Section 561.20(2)(b) in effect prior to 18 April 1972, it is entitled to qualify for and receive a license pursuant to the provisions of the law in effect prior to 18 April 1972, provided it meets the other requirements set forth in Fla.Admin.Code Rule 7A-3.15 and the applicable rules and regulations of the Division....
...sued prior to 18 April 1972. The court reached this result by reasoning that the provisions of the Act required that it be applied prospectively and not retroactively. It has always been the legislative intent that a special restaurant license under Section 561.20(2) was available only when there was a bona fide substantial restaurant operation primarily engaged in the service of food and nonalcoholic beverages....
...han 30% of the (total gross revenue of the overall restaurant operation. This administrative rule sets forth a test of a bona fide restaurant operation and the test is reasonable and consistent with the statute then in force. Under the provisions of Section 561.20(2)(b), effective 18 April 1972, the provisions of this section in effect prior to that date would include not only the statutory language but also duly promulgated rules and regulations which were not inconsistent with the statutory provisions....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2686, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17195
...This is an appeal of a Final Order of Appellee, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (hereafter referred to as DABT), which revoked the alcoholic beverage license under its SRX classification, which was issued to Appellant, G.G.P., Inc., t/a Thee Doll House Beach. Such license is issued pursuant to Section 561.20(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes, 1983, to a restaurant of at least 2500 square feet of service area, equipped to serve 150 persons full course meals at tables at one time, and deriving at least 51% of its gross revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. This type of license is permitted as an exception to the general limitation on number of beverage licenses to one per 2500 residents or major fraction thereof within the territory of a county, as specified in Section 561.20(1), Florida Statutes. The Final Order appealed was the culmination of proceedings pursuant to a notice to show cause to appellant which charged that it failed to derive at least 51% of its gross revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages, contrary to Section 561.20(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes, 1983, and Rule 7 A-3.15(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code....
...The percentage of food and non-alcoholic beverage sales at Respondent’s premises during the calendar year 1983 never approached 51% and that the reports submitted “reveals a steady decline from 40.5% in January to 23.3% in December. ...” B. Florida Statute 561.20 requires that 51% of gross revenue sales be from food and non-alcoholic beverage sales....
...We find no error in DABT’s rejection of the Hearing Officer’s conclusion concerning lack of culpability. Further, we find that DABT did give adequate explanation for increasing appellant’s penalty. DABT recited those facts which support a finding that appellant failed to meet the criteria of Section
561.20(2)(a)3., which failure entitled DABT to revoke appellant’s license pursuant to
561.29 (1)....
...Accordingly, the order on appeal is AFFIRMED. BOOTH, C.J., concurs. ZEHMER, J., concurs specially. . Revocation does not disqualify appellant from obtaining another special beverage license in the future. See §
561.15(3). A business which meets the criteria of
561.20(2)(a)3., is automatically entitled to an SRX license unless the owner(s) come under the limiting provisions of §
561.15....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2656, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16344
to be brought against it for violations of Section
561.20(3), Florida Statutes (1981), and Florida Administrative
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1954 Fla. LEXIS 1913
...ent. It appears that on two prior separate occasions and in two separate suits the ordinance in question, or one similar to it, had been determined by the Circuit Court to be unconstitutional and void for the reason that it was in conflict with F.S. Section 561.20 et seq., F.S.A....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...everage license issued to you, in that you did not have 200 seats at tables and the necessary equipment and supplies for serving full course meals, and were not serving full course meals, regularly, at your licensed place of business in violation of section 561.20 Florida Statutes [F.S.A.].” Pursuant to notice, a hearing was had December 6, 1956. Thereafter, on December 31, 1956, the Director issued an order wherein he revoked the licensee’s *356 license. The Director made an exhaustive finding of fact which showed a violation on the part of licensee. The purpose of Section 561.20(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is to license those restaurants containing a certain minimum capacity to serve alcoholic beverages at those times when regular meals are being served....
