Case ID: fla_156/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOSEPH MECHLOW v. JAMES T. VOCELLE, as Director of the State Beverage Department, and The City of Miami, Florida. JOSEPH MOABA and CHARLES HAYEK v. JAMES T. VOCELLE, as Director of the State Beverage Department, and THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA.
    22 So. (2nd) 631
    June Term, 1945
    June 29, 1945
    En Banc
    
      Hoffman & Durant, Carl T. Hoffman, N. J. Durant and Sam C. Matthews, for relators.
    
      J. W. Watson, Jr., for respondents.
   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.