Noble v. State
Citations
- 68 Fla. 1
- 66 So. 153
Syllabus
<p>1. The organic declaration that “all men are equal before the law” may be regarded as a guarantee that all persons shall have equal consideration and protection of the law for the maintenance and security of the rights to which they are legally entitled.</p> <p>2. The exercise of the police power of the State necessarily involves appropriate discriminations; and the fundamental law only requires that such discriminations shall not be arbitrarily unjust or oppressive as they affect the rights of persons.</p> <p>3. The Legislature may regulate some occupations and not regulate others, when private rights secured by the Constitution are not thereby invaded and the regulations that are provided operate with substantial fairness upon practically all persons similarly situated, so that the governmental authority be not arbitrarily exercised to injure the substantial rights of or to oppress any person.</p> <p>4. Legislative authority to regulate intrastate occupations is 'continuous and is subject to unlimited division when organic provisions are not violated.</p> <p>5. Classifications of persons in legislative regulations may be on any practical substantial basis that has relation to the subject regulated and that is not purely arbitrary and essentially unjust in its operation upon the rights of persons.</p> <p>6. If the organic declaration that “all men are equal before the law” is given the force of a guarantee of equal protection of the laws, it is not violated when a legislative regulation within the police power of the State is made applicable to all persons as a class who are similarly situated and conditioned with reference to the regulation and the classification is not purely arbitrary.</p> <p>7. Chapter 6192, Acts of 1911, does not impose unusual or unreasonable restrictions upon the lawful occupation of practicing dentistry or dental surgery or prescribe arbitrarily unreasonable conditions upon the right 'to engage in such occupation so as to invade private
Judges: Cockrell, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- United Yacht Brokers, Inc. v. GillespieSupreme Court of Florida· 1979-11-21· cited 37×
- State ex rel. Spencer v. BryanSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-01-28· cited 24×
- Adams v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Florida· 1919-08-18· cited 22×
- Ex parte FrancisSupreme Court of Florida· 1918-08-13· cited 13×
- In Re Estate of GainerSupreme Court of Florida· 1985-02-14· cited 12×
- Florida League of Cities v. DERDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1992-08-18· cited 11×
- Young v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-10-26· cited 11×
- Steigerwalt v. City of St. PetersburgSupreme Court of Florida· 1975-07-02· cited 9×
- City of West Palm Beach v. RyderSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-03-05· cited 9×
- Marasso v. Van PeltSupreme Court of Florida· 1919-04-19· cited 9×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Dent v. West VirginiaSupreme Court· 1889-01-14· cited 764×
- Davis v. Florida Power Co.Supreme Court of Florida· 1912-06-15· cited 55×
- In re ThompsonWashington Supreme Court· 1904-12-22· cited 26×
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 16×
- Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-01-15· cited 13×
- State v. ChapmanSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1903-06-08· cited 10×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.