Morrison v. Plotkin

77 So. 2d 254
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 21, 1955
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 77 So. 2d 254 (Morrison v. Plotkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morrison v. Plotkin, 77 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1955).

Opinion

77 So.2d 254 (1955)

A. William MORRISON, Dewey H. Johnson, S.E. Simmons, Russell J. Davis and Clyde Morris, as members of and constituting the Florida Board of Pharmacy, Petitioners,
v.
Max PLOTKIN, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

January 21, 1955.
Rehearing Denied February 1, 1955.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Phillip Goldman and James L. Graham, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for petitioners.

Robert H. Givens, Jr., Miami, for respondent.

THOMAS, Justice.

The respondent filed a bill seeking a decree construing Sec. 465.071(1), Florida Statutes 1953 and F.S.A., and directing the Florida Board of Pharmacy "to prescribe, pursuant to subparagraph (d) [of the act] the additional requirements as to age, education, experience and moral character which will effectuate the intentions of the Legislature * * *." At first the chancellor dismissed the bill on motion of the present petitioner then, on rehearing, he rescinded his order.

We think he was correct the first time. The respondent concedes in his brief that he has not applied to the Board of Pharmacy for permission to take the examination so that his fitness to practice pharmacy in this state can be determined; and so far as we can learn from the record, he has not applied for reciprocal registration, or shown that Sec. 465.081, Florida Statutes 1953 and F.S.A., providing for registration here, under certain conditions, of pharmacists qualified in another state is applicable by reason of the fact the State of New Jersey, where the respondent claims to have been licensed, grants registration under the same circumstances to pharmicists of this state.

Our view is that the bill should have been dismissed because no justiciable issue was presented and because the plaintiff had made no effort to exhaust his administrative remedies. Ervin v. City of North Miami Beach, Fla., 66 So.2d 235; De Carlo v. Town of West Miami, Fla., 49 So.2d 596.

The petition for certiorari is granted and the order vacating the order granting the motion to dismiss is quashed with directions to dismiss the bill.

MATHEWS, C.J., and TERRELL, SEBRING and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Daniels v. Gillespie
335 So. 2d 353 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Florida Citrus Commission v. Owens
239 So. 2d 840 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
State Road Dept. v. Cone Brothers Contracting Co.
207 So. 2d 489 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Warford v. Lehigh Portland Cement Co.
22 Fla. Supp. 50 (Dade County Small Claims Court, 1963)
Scott v. National Airlines, Inc.
150 So. 2d 237 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1963)
Scott v. National Airlines, Inc.
142 So. 2d 313 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Hildebrandt v. Dade County Board of Rules & Appeals
18 Fla. Supp. 124 (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 1961)
Metropolitan Dade County v. Polk Pools, Inc.
124 So. 2d 737 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
Truesdell v. Florida East Coast Ry.
14 Fla. Supp. 32 (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 So. 2d 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-plotkin-fla-1955.