Mechlow v. Vocelle Moaba v. Vocelle

22 So. 2d 631, 156 Fla. 115, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 767
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 29, 1945·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

*116 PER CURIAM:

Both these cases involve the question of whether or not Ordinance No. 1526 as amended by Ordinance No. 2735, as further amended by Ordinance No. 2161, authorizes the City of Miami to limit the number of liquor distribution places within the City in view of the provisions of the State Beverage Act.

In our view, this question was answered by us in William D. Singer, et al., v. Scarborough, et al., 20 So. (2nd) 126, decided December 5, 1944. So the motion for peremptory writ of mandamus notwithstanding the return is granted on authority of the last cited case. See also City of Miami v. Paul Kichinko, decided this date.

It is so ordered.

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

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

Mechlow v. Vocelle Moaba v. Vocelle, 22 So. 2d 631, 156 Fla. 115, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 767 (Fla. 1945).

22 So. 2d 631 (Mechlow v. Vocelle Moaba v. Vocelle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Miami v. State Ex Rel. Shehan
27 So. 2d 829 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1946)
State Ex Rel. Dixie Inn, Inc. v. City of Miami
24 So. 2d 705 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1946)