Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Dusenberry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Dusenberry

362 So. 2d 132, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16596

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 30, 1978·No. No. JJ-28·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At issue here is the validity of Section 804.311 of the Jacksonville City Ordinance Code requiring a $1,000.00 occupational license fee for fortune tellers, clairvoyants, astrologists, etc. The trial court found that the ordinance, asserted by the city to be solely a revenue raising device, was [133]*133. . unreasonable and thus illegal and void . . We agree that the ordinance is not valid as a revenue raising device and affirm the trial court’s judgment. We do not in this opinion consider the power of the city to control this type of activity through regulatory ordinances.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

At issue here is the validity of Section 804.311 of the Jacksonville City Ordinance Code requiring a $1,000.00 occupational license fee for fortune tellers, clairvoyants, astrologists, etc. The trial court found that the ordinance, asserted by the city to be solely a revenue raising device, was [133]*133. . unreasonable and thus illegal and void . . We agree that the ordinance is not valid as a revenue raising device and affirm the trial court’s judgment. We do not in this opinion consider the power of the city to control this type of activity through regulatory ordinances.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Dusenberry, 362 So. 2d 132, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16596 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

362 So. 2d 132 (Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Dusenberry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related