Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Dusenberry

Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Dusenberry

362 So. 2d 132, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16596
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 30, 1978
DocketNo. JJ-28
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 362 So. 2d 132 (Consolidated City of Jacksonville v. Dusenberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

City of North Miami v. Williams
555 So. 2d 399 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
362 So. 2d 132, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-city-of-jacksonville-v-dusenberry-fladistctapp-1978.