State, Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Animal Industry v. Denmark

366 So. 2d 469, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13926
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 3, 1979
DocketNo. 77-1721
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 366 So. 2d 469 (State, Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Animal Industry v. Denmark) 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
State, Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Animal Industry v. Denmark, 366 So. 2d 469, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13926 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinions

DAUKSCH, Judge.

The trial court enjoined the appellant from enforcing certain of its regulations against appellees and their horses. These regulations have to do with the detection, identification and quarantine of horses which show a positive reaction to the Cog-gins Test for Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA). This test is also known as the Agar Gel Immunodiffusion Blood Test (AGID) and its purpose is to determine whether the tested animal has EIA. The trial judge determined from the testimony of expert witnesses that the test does not show the presence of EIA but merely the presence of antibodies in the bloodstream. It is the position of the appellant that the antibodies are only present in those horses which are infected with the deadly EIA virus.

This all began with the enactment of Section 585.671, Florida Statutes, (1975). [470]*470The statute was from an act of the legislature in 1963.1

It is obvious from the preamble to the act the legislature deems EIA, also called Swamp Fever, to be a threat to the horse industry and economy of the State.

It is within the police power of the State to enact laws to prevent the spread of infectious or contagious diseases. Conner v. Carlton, 223 So.2d 324 (Fla.1969), app. dismissed, 396 U.S. 272, 90 S.Ct. 481, 24 L.Ed.2d 417 (1969), reh. denied, 397 U.S. 929, 90 S.Ct. 900, 25 L.Ed.2d 110 (1970); Campoamor v. State Live Stock Sanitary Board, 136 Fla. 451, 182 So. 277 (1938).

The legislature may delegate rule making authority to an administrative board to assure the complete will of the people is carried out. Campoamor v. State Live Stock Sanitary Board, supra.

In fact, it would be an endless, and nigh impossible, task for the legislature itself to see to each and every necessary regulation which is formulated to implement and administer the laws passed. Therein lies the purpose and authority of the legislature and the executive.

The question on appeal is whether the court has the authority in this case to examine the foregoing process of attempting to control swamp fever and determine its validity. That is, was it proper for the trial judge to take evidence in a contested hearing and from that evidence find that the AGID test shows only the presence of antibodies and not the presence of the disease and then declare “the rules and regulations do not have a reasonable basis in fact; thus, said rules are not a reasonable exercise' of administrative discretion.”

Without reciting all of the evidence suffice it to say there was definite conflict among the witnesses as to the interpretation to be given a positive reaction to the AGID test. Some of the evidence sup[471]*471ported the trial judge who found the test merely showed the presence of the antibodies in the blood of the tested horse but did not show the presence of the virus. Other evidence showed the antibodies to be specific to EIA and the appellant determined this to conclusively show the presence of the disease. The appellant offered evidence that the United States Department of Agriculture and at least forty other states officially recognize the AGID test as an identifier of EIA. Finally, the appellant offered evidence to show the horse industry, through racing, provides economic benefit to the State and the disease would adversely affect that economic benefit if left uncontrolled.

It is not within the province of the court to interfere with the judgment of the legislature and its properly delegated authority, absent a clear showing that the subject of the statutory enactments was outside the power of the legislature, or that the rules and regulations promulgated under the statutes were arbitrary or unreasonable or not consistent with the mandate of the legislature. Askew v. Cross Key Waterways & Askew v. Postal Colony Co., Inc., (Fla. S.Ct. Cases No. 52,251 and 52,252, Opinion filed November 22, 1978); Conner v. Carlton, supra.

REVERSED.

DOWNEY, C. J., concurs. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.

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

Related

JOSIE MACHOVEC v. PALM BEACH COUNTY
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2021
Burgess v. Mid-Florida Service
609 So. 2d 637 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Davis v. City of South Bay
433 So. 2d 1364 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
State, Dept. of Ins. v. Ins. Services Office
434 So. 2d 908 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
STATE DEPT. OF AGRI. & CONS. SERV., ETC. v. Denmark
366 So. 2d 469 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
366 So. 2d 469, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 13926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-agriculture-consumer-services-division-of-animal-fladistctapp-1979.