Florida State Board of Health v. Lewis
149 So.2d 41 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For jurisdictional purposes, a 'class of constitutional or state officers' consists of two or more officers who separately and independently exercise identical governmental powers. A single state board or commission, acting as a collective governmental entity, does not constitute such a class.
Facts:
- The Florida State Board of Health (Board of Health) promulgated regulations governing the commercial spraying of lawns and shrubbery with highly toxic pesticides.
- Richard L. Lewis's activities were subject to these new regulations.
- A dispute arose between Lewis and the Board of Health concerning the validity of the pesticide regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard L. Lewis filed a lawsuit against the Florida State Board of Health in the circuit court (a trial court), seeking an injunction against pesticide regulations he alleged were invalid.
- The chancellor in the circuit court denied the injunction and ruled that the regulations were valid.
- Lewis, as appellant, appealed the decision to the District Court of Appeal, First District.
- The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decree, holding that the regulations were invalid.
- The Florida State Board of Health, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of Florida to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a single state board, acting as one governmental entity, constitute 'a class of constitutional or state officers' for the purpose of invoking the Florida Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction under Article V, Section 4(2) of the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thornal
No. A single state board acting as a collective governmental entity does not constitute 'a class of constitutional or state officers' for jurisdictional purposes. The court reasoned that the constitutional provision was intended to allow review of decisions that affect one state officer in a way that would similarly affect all other state officers in the same category, such as all justices of the peace or all boards of county commissioners. The word 'class' requires the existence of two or more separate and independent officers or official entities exercising identical powers. The Board of Health, although composed of multiple members, acts as a single governmental entity. Therefore, a decision affecting it only impacts one entity, not a 'class' of them.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Roberts
The Chief Justice dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a significant jurisdictional limitation on the Florida Supreme Court's power to review decisions from lower appellate courts. It establishes that a multi-member board or commission is treated as a single entity for jurisdictional analysis under the 'class of officers' provision. This precedent prevents such boards from automatically gaining access to the Supreme Court for review, requiring them to meet other jurisdictional criteria. The ruling distinguishes a decision affecting a single board from one whose legal principles would affect all similar boards statewide (e.g., all county commissions), with only the latter potentially creating a reviewable 'class'.
