Case Name: Jaunice LINVILLE, d/b/a Stardust Club, Appellant, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida; Vince Seely, Sheriff of Escambia County, Florida; and Curtis Golden, State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-08-03
Citations: 436 So. 2d 293
Docket Number: No. AO-313
Parties: Jaunice LINVILLE, d/b/a Stardust Club, Appellant, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida; Vince Seely, Sheriff of Escambia County, Florida; and Curtis Golden, State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, Appellees.
Judges: ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and WIGGIN-TON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 436
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
Jaunice LINVILLE, d/b/a Stardust Club, Appellant, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida; Vince Seely, Sheriff of Escambia County, Florida; and Curtis Golden, State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, Appellees.
No. AO-313.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 3, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1983.
Charles J. Kahn, Jr., of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A., Pensacola, for appellant.
Jan J. Hevier, County Atty., Pensacola, for appellees.

Opinion:
SHIVERS, Judge.
Linville challenges the validity of Escam-bia County Ordinance No. 82-2, which pertains to the regulation and operation of bottle clubs, alleging that the ordinance was invalidly enacted and that the ordinance is constitutionally infirm on several grounds. We agree that the ordinance was invalidly enacted and, therefore, invalidate the ordinance and reverse the order of the trial court upholding the validity of the ordinance.
On review of the record, we find that no notice of intent to consider the challenged ordinance was on file, in a separate book, 15 days before the county commission acted on the ordinance, as required by Section 125.-66(2), Fla.Stat. (1981). On that basis, we declare the ordinance invalid. Since we decide this case on procedural grounds, we do not express any opinion on the constitutional issues presented here for review.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and WIGGIN-TON, JJ., concur.