Court Opinion

ID: 7499787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 04:22:28.079223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:23:14.959062
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
We find appellants’ constitutional argument to be without merit. See City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 421 U.S. 297, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976); Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 86 S.Ct. 1717, 16 L.Ed.2d 828 (1966); Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955); Lasky v. State Farm Insurance Co., 296 So.2d 9 (Fla.1974); Winner v. Westwood, 273 So.2d 151 (Fla.1970); Rodriquez v. Jones, 64 So.2d 278 (Fla.1953). We have also reviewed the other issues raised by appellants and find them to be without merit.
The order of the court below is, therefore, affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and McDonald, JJ., concur.