Title: Wednesday Night, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale
Citation: 272 So. 2d 502
Docket Number: 42305
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 20, 1972

272 So. 2d 502 (1972)
WEDNESDAY NIGHT, INC., a Florida Corporation, D/B/a Bachelors III, Appellant,
v.
The CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE and Broward County, Florida, Appellees.
No. 42305.

Supreme Court of Florida.
December 20, 1972.
Rehearing Denied February 23, 1973.
*503 Heiman &amp; Crary, Miami, for appellant.
Dean Andrews and Ronald B. Sladon, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee City of Fort Lauderdale; John U. Lloyd, County Atty., and Alexander Cocalis, Asst. County Atty., for appellee Broward County.
ERVIN, Judge:
Appellant Wednesday Night, Inc., a Florida corporation doing business as Bachelors III, operates a nightclub which sells alcoholic beverages within the City of Fort Lauderdale. Appellant commenced this action against Appellee City of Fort Lauderdale (and the City moved for joinder of Broward County) seeking to enjoin enforcement of City Ordinance C-70-34 which fixes the hours for sale of alcoholic beverages on premises within the corporate limits of the City. The ordinance was adopted pursuant to the authority granted by F.S. Section 562.14(3), F.S.A. The Appellant's complaint specifically asserted the unconstitutionality of the statute and the ordinance.
The trial court entered a final judgment finding:
Appellant appealed that judgment here, and raises the following questions for decision:
F.S. Section 562.14, F.S.A., reads as follows:
We have jurisdiction of the appeal because the trial court passed upon the validity of F.S. Section 562.14, F.S.A. We find that the five questions should be answered in the negative and affirm.
Even though other municipalities in close proximity to the City of Fort Lauderdale have established hours governing the sale of intoxicating beverages on premises that are different from those fixed by the City of Fort Lauderdale, this in nowise affects the validity of Section 562.14 or the City of Fort Lauderdale's ordinance. Pursuant to the delegated authority of the statute, the City may within its territorial jurisdiction prescribe by ordinance different hours of liquor sales from those fixed by other cities. As to local matters and subjects, local regulations and classifications applying within the territorial jurisdiction of the governmental unit may be enacted or adopted in the absence of controlling provisions of law to the contrary. F.S. Section 562.14(3), F.S.A. expressly *505 authorizes and delegates the power of municipal regulation of hours of liquor sales. Section 5, Article VIII, State Constitution, F.S.A., provides the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be regulated by law. Section 2(b), Article VIII, State Constitution, provides municipalities shall have governmental powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, "and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law." Reference is made to § 152 and § 153 of 6 Fla.Jur., Constitutional Law, relating to delegation of regulatory power by the Legislature to municipalities. In this regard see particularly State v. A.C.L.R. Co., 56 Fla. 617, 47 So. 969, and Jacksonville v. Bowden, 67 Fla. 181, 64 So. 769.
Insofar as concerns equal protection, it is well settled that the Constitution of the United States does not prohibit legislation which is limited to the territory within which it is to operate. The constitutional guaranty of equal protection of laws does not require territorial uniformity. See Ocampo v. United States, 234 U.S. 91, 34 S. Ct. 712, 58 L. Ed. 1231, and McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S. Ct. 1101, 6 L. Ed. 2d 393.
F.S. Section 562.14(3), F.S.A. is a general law relating to all municipalities. It has no features contravening the several prohibitions against certain special laws or general laws of local application appearing in Section 11 of Article III, State Constitution.
There is no mandate in the State Constitution to establish a uniform system of municipal government. Section 2, Article VIII, State Constitution. Section 562.14(3) is therefore not in contravention of any uniform system of municipal government.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C.J., and CARLTON, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., and DREW, J. (Retired), concur.