author: ADKINS, Justice.

text:
    Norwood W. HOPE, Robert L. Saunders, and William K. Saunders, d/b/a Hogtown Creek Properties, a partnership, Petitioners, v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, Respondent.
    No. 49506.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Nov. 23, 1977.
    Rehearing Denied April 5, 1978.
    Harris A. Tobin and William C. Andrews of Andrews & DeLaney, Gainesville, for petitioners.
    William L. Durden of Kent, Sears, Dur-den & Kent, Jacksonville, for respondent.
   ADKINS, Justice.

This is an interlocutory appeal from the order of the Circuit Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit in and for Alachua County. Because of the interlocutory nature qf the order we consider the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. Burnsed v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., 290 So.2d 13 (Fla.1974). We have jurisdiction. Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

Appellants, plaintiffs in the action below, own three contiguous parcels of land within the City of Gainesville, which when purchased were designated “Recreation, Open Space and Buffers” by the Comprehensive Development Plan for Gainesville Urban Area 1970. One parcel was zoned Administrative/Professional, and the remaining two were zoned for residential estate or single family residential purposes. In order to construct an office and banking facility plaintiffs sought to have the two parcels’ zoning changed from residential to Administrative/Professional.

They applied to the Plan Board of appel-lee City of Gainesville (defendant below) for rezoning of the two parcels of land. The Plan Board recommended denial and plaintiffs then went before the City Commission at a public hearing. There, although a majority of the commission voted to grant the request (3-2), the application was denied because more than twenty per cent of the land ownership in the area eligible to vote objected to the petition, and Section 2-46 of the Code of Ordinance requires approval of a four-fifths- vote of the commission in such cases.

Plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory relief in the Circuit Court of Alachua County on the grounds that Section 2-46 of the Gainesville Code was unconstitutional, that the denial of the zoning application was arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore an unlawful taking since the application was consistent with the land-use plan as amended.

Section 2-46 of the Gainesville Code is the implementation of Section 36(1) of the Gainesville Charter, Chapter 15226, Special Acts of Florida, 1931, as amended by Chapter 65-1571 and Chapter 73-473, Laws of Florida, which provides:

“Such prohibitions, regulations, restrictions, and boundaries may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed by ordinance amending the same. In case, however, of the protest against such change, signed by the owners of twenty per cent (20%) or more of either the area included in such proposed change or the area within four hundred (400) feet of the area included in the proposed change, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of four-fifths (Vs) of all the commission. Publicly owned right-of-way, although included in calculating the distance of four hundred (400) feet referred to in the previous sentence, shall not be included in determining the total of the area lying within four hundred (400) feet of the property involved in such proposed change and the percentages referred to.”

The constitutionality of this section is challenged on the grounds that it is arbitrary and unreasonable and not reasonably related to public health, safety, or welfare, that it denies equal protection of the law and due process, and that it delegates the exercise of legislative power to the unbridled discretion of a small segment of the public.

Laws with similar extraordinary majority requirements have been considered by the courts in Florida; however, their constitutionality was never questioned. See Streep v. Sample, 84 So.2d 586 (Fla.1956); City of Lauderdale v. Des Camps, 111 So.2d 693 (Fla.2d DCA 1959); Banana River Properties v. City of Cocoa Beach, 287 So.2d 377 (Fla.4th DCA 1973); Fox v. Fratello, 308 So.2d 581 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).

Similar statutes exist in many states, McQuillan, Municipal Corporations (3d ed.) §§ 25.244, 25.248; 101 C.J.S. Zoning §§ 114, 122, and have been held valid in several jurisdictions as not being in derogation of the rule against delegating legislative authority. These decisions are based generally on the theory that people have an inherent right to petition their government for redress of grievances. Farmer v. Meeker, 63 N.J.Super. 56, 163 A.2d 729 (1960); Koppel v. City of Fairway, 189 Kan. 710, 371 P.2d 113 (1962); Trumper v. City of Quincy, 264 N.E.2d 689 (Mass.1970). In Bredberg v. City of Wheaton, 24 Ill.2d 612, 182 N.E.2d 742 (1962), the Supreme Court of Illinois considered a municipal zoning ordinance similar to the one here in question and made the following comment:

“Discretion as to what the law shall be still rests with the municipal authorities, who are still free to amend or retain their ordinance as they choose. And although the effect of the written protest is to require a greater percentage of the vote of a municipality’s governing body, the better reasoned authorities agree that no delegation of the legislative power results.” At 746.

The written protests of that percentage of owners necessary to require the extraordinary requirement is not conclusive, but rather is a prerequisite to what could in essence be called a closer scrutiny by the City Commission, and their vote, of course, can override the protest, thus leaving the ultimate authority to amend the zoning ordinance with the elected officials. Annot. 21 A.L.R.2d 556 (1929).

The argument is advanced that regardless of protest all property owners seeking a zoning amendment are similarly situated, and to require an extraordinarily high majority to pass one amendment and not the other is unconstitutional. We do not accept this reasoning. The fact that the surrounding owners did protest in writing the proposed change in zoning is the most significant aspect of this action. At the very least, the City of Gainesville owes a duty to all landowners who could foreseeably be adversely affected by the proposed zoning change and to give as much consideration to their rights as to those who would perhaps benefit from the change.

It is clear that the purpose of a provision requiring a greater than ordinary vote for a change of the zoning classification upon the filing of protests is to confer a measure of added protection against unwanted or ill-considered change upon those property owners who would be most affected by it. Farmer v. Meeker, supra. Here we have a situation where the surrounding landowners are primarily residential owners and are protesting the zone change which would allow an office and banking facility. This would change the complexion of their area substantially, and, as evidenced by their written protests, in a manner unacceptable to them.

The written protest to a zoning amendment creates a posture for the one property owner which is dissimilar to that of the owner where no protest is made, and it alone is the protesting neighboring landowners’ means in the local governmental process to make their grievance known and the opportunity to stop what could substantially and adversely affect their property. Thus, this different posture before the City Commission created by a written protest would negate a constitutional attack on equal protection grounds.

This is closely related to the allegation that by allowing this written protest by a minimum of twenty per cent of the landowners within 400 feet that the owner seeking the amendment is subject to what could be totally capricious protests which could thwart the amendment. This argument we do not accept, The passage of an amendment is not dependent upon the unbridled discretion of a single individual or limited group of individuals who may protest in writing, and additionally the protests do not determine the issue but merely place those protesting in a position to have the City Commission consider and act upon their protests. The City Commission is the ultimate authority to amend the ordinance, and as the elected officials of the City they consider the protests before voting. If they by their vote do not reach the four-fifths or four-to-one vote required where a sufficient protest has been made, this is prima facie evidence that the protests were not capricious.

Section 2-46 would appear to be not only a valid ordinance, but one which is desirable. Both the public interests and private interests are considered with the resultant effect that the public interests are paramount but not in derogation of the private interests where a valid protest is made.

Section 36(1) of the Gainesville Charter is constitutional and the trial judge was correct in his ruling.

The writ of certiorari is discharged and the cause is remanded to the trial court.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J„ and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM. ADKINS, Justice,

license: Public Domain

text:
    Glynis Margaret LAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 49927.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Nov. 30, 1977.
    As Corrected Feb. 27, 1978.

      David A. Demers, of the Law Offices of Carreiro, Brawley, Demers & Demers, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal invites us to examine inter alia the constitutionality vel non of Section 796.07(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). Jurisdiction vests in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution, which requires this Court to hear appeals from orders of trial courts initially and directly passing on the validity of a state statute.

Appellant was charged with violating Section 796.07(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), which makes it unlawful “to keep, set up, maintain, or operate any place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution.” She moved to dismiss the information on the ground that the statute was vague and overbroad. The motion was denied. A jury found appellant guilty as charged following which the trial judge adjudicated her guilty of prostitution. The instant appeal followed.

This Court has recently upheld the facial validity of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes (1975), in State v. Bales, 343 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1977), and Bell v. State, 289 So.2d 388 (Fla. 1973). While neither of these two cases directly concerns subparagraph (2)(a) of the statute, both considered whether “lewdness,” as used within the statute, was vague and overbroad. The constitutional attack which appellant now makes is essentially against the word lewdness in subparagraph (2)(a). For the reasons previously articulated in Bales and Bell, we find Section 796.-07(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), sufficiently lucid and determinate to withstand appellant’s challenge.

The constitutional issue having been resolved, it appears that the only substantial issues involved are within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida; therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Florida Appellate Rules, it is ordered that this cause be transferred to said Circuit Court for consideration and determination after five (5) days from this date unless, in the meantime, attorneys of record for the parties, or any of them shall bring to the attention of the Court that the cause is one which should be heard and determined by this Court. Unless such cause is shown by writing filed in this Court within the time stated, the Clerk shall complete the transfer in accord with the above directive without further order.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and KARL, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, with which BOYD and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, Justice,

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I agree that Section 796.07(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975) is constitutional.

I dissent from that portion which transfers the case to the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida for determination of the other questions. This re-suits in a split appeal. When we are exerting every effort to speed up litigation, we should welcome the opportunity of terminating litigation by proceeding to an adjudication of all questions involved. We have the authority. Hall v. Florida Board of Pharmacy, 177 So.2d 833 (Fla.1965).

The party receiving an adverse decision in the Circuit Court will, in all probability, seek further relief from us in an effort to assert conflict jurisdiction. It seems inappropriate to encourage this further delay and expense.

BOYD and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.


author: BOYD, Judge. ENGLAND, Judge, dissenting. HATCHETT, Judge,

text:
    S.H.B., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 50612.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Nov. 30, 1977.
    Rehearing Denied April 5, 1978.

      Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
   BOYD, Judge.

After a hearing before juvenile court, the state’s petition to have appellant adjudicated delinquent for violation of Section 871.-01, Florida Statutes, was sustained. Adjudication was withheld and appellant was placed on probation.

Section 871.01, Florida Statutes, states: “Whoever wilfully interrupts or disturbs any school or any assembly of people met for the worship of God or for any lawful purpose shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree . . . In denying appellant’s motion for a new trial the Circuit Court initially and directly ruled on the constitutionality of Section 871.01, holding it to be constitutional on its face and as applied to appellant in the instant case. We have jurisdiction.

The arguments presented by appellant are that the statute is constitutionally void for overbreadth and that it may not be constitutionally applied to him under the facts of this case because his activity was protected by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. He cites cases arising under Section 877.03, Florida Statutes, in support of his argument. Section 877.03 is the “breach of the peace” statute, which was held constitutional in White v. State, 330 So.2d 3 (Fla.1976). Appellant urges that the statute under which he was convicted and the “breach of the peace” statute are analogous and that his behavior should be judged under the standards of the latter as construed in White. However, Section 877.03, by its obvious breadth and its susceptibility to abuse by authorities, is subject to certain restraints in application which do not apply to Section 871.01. Thus, the cases defining the constitutional limits of Section 877.03 are not entirely apposite in this case.

Section 871.01 is a more explicit statute dealing with a particular kind of disturbance, i. e., the disturbance of a lawful assembly. It is not a rephrasing of Section 877.03, but is supplementary to it. It recognizes and provides penalties for the deliberate disruption of a peaceful and lawful assembly. The statute enumerates school gatherings and religious worship as the kinds of assemblies which it seeks to protect. These functions are fragile by their nature. They generally require a high degree of voluntary restraint and cooperation to produce the harmony necessary for their effectiveness. Thus, they are highly vulnerable to disturbance. A single individual may cause havoc in a situation in which hundreds of others have sought a common purpose.

For this reason, certain acts are proscribed in. this setting which might be tolerable in the general public realm. Because of the innumerable situations and types of conduct involved, the question of what conduct is forbidden must be determined largely on a case-by-case basis. Generally, it is at the trial level that this decision will be made. However, the Constitution requires that certain guidelines be followed so that unnecessary infringement of individual liberties does not occur. It must be recognized that all civil freedoms have limits, though these limits should be drawn as broadly as possible and only placed with the greatest justification.

To commit an offense under Section 871.01 a person must have deliberately acted to create a disturbance. That is, he must act with the intention that his behavior impede the successful functioning of the assembly in which he has intervened, or with reckless disregard of the effect of his behavior. The acts complained of must be such that a reasonable person would expect them to be disruptive. Finally, the acts must, in fact, significantly disturb the assembly. These elements are inherent in the statute as drafted.

Since it is impossible to predict the type of behavior a person might use to cause a disruption, the statute cannot be more specific. But the elements of the offense, as outlined above, prevent an innocent party genuinely exercising his civil rights from being penalized.

In the case sub judice, innocence of purpose is not a factor. The appellant ran through the halls of Ribault Junior High School while classes were in session, in a group which was talking loudly, at a time when appellant was supposed to be in class. It was testified that students crowded the doors of the classrooms to view the occurrence. Appellant ignored requests that he return to class and continued his escapades in the hallways. When finally confronted by a teacher near the cafeteria, after having been asked by the principal to leave the school grounds, the defendant loudly uttered obscenities at the teacher, causing a crowd to gather. These facts establish that appellant committed acts which a reasonable person would expect to cause a disturbance, and that he acted with intent or with reckless disregard of the consequences of his behavior. The evidence shows that a disruption of the school’s functions did, in fact, occur.

As the appellant notes, mere words, when used as a tool of communication, are constitutionally protected. But the protection fails when, by the manner of their use, the words invade the right of others to pursue their lawful activities. As we said in White: “It is the degree of loudness, and the circumstances in which they are uttered, which takes them out of the constitutionally protected area.” We note that appellant’s conduct consisted of more than words — e. g., running through the halls of a school in session, disobeying the lawful and reasonable requests of school officials, and repeated loud utterances. The totality of these acts, in the context in which they were performed, constitutes a willful disturbance of a school by appellant, in violation of Section 871.01, Florida Statutes.

It should be noted that purported offenses under Section 871.01 are to be judged by the circumstances in which they occur. It takes more to disturb a parade than a church service. However, in a public school, appellant’s conduct coupled with strident profanity in defiance of school authorities, causing an interruption in the school’s activities, is forbidden under the statute.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., ADKINS and KARL, JJ., concur.

ENGLAND, J., dissents with an opinion.

HATCHETT, J., dissents with an opinion, with which ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.

• ■ SUNDBERG, J.', dissents.

ENGLAND, Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent both from the majority’s evaluation of the validity of this statute and its reading of the record in this case.

As to the statute, Section 871.01, Florida Statutes (1975), makes a criminal of anyone who “willfully interrupts or disturbs any school . . . .” A majority of my colleagues find this language sufficiently clear so that a man (here child) of common intelligence can know what is permissible conduct and what is not. I do not find that degree of clarity in the law. If elected public officials are not presumed to possess sufficient intelligence to understand that a violation of express statutory duties constitutes “malpractice in office”, then I fail to understand how school children can be held criminally responsible for errors in their judgment as to what constitutes or does not constitute an interruption or disturbance in a school.

The two key words in the statute are “willfully” and “disturbs”. The majority attempts to provide a concrete standard of criminality which incorporates these terms by stating that a child is guilty of a criminal act if he or she does something which “significantly disturb[s]” a school and does so in “reckless disregard” of what the effect of the act might be. The majority offers no objective standard by which the term “disturb” may be measured, but leaves it to the idiosyncrasies of the persons claiming to have been “disturbed”. Under the majority’s standard it is doubtful that any normal school child in this state is innocent of this crime. The clearest demonstration that this statute is overbroad and vague appears in the majority opinion itself, which states that

“the question of what conduct is forbidden must be determined largely on a case-by-case basis.
Since it is impossible to predict the type of behavior a person might use to cause a disruption, the statute cannot be more specific.”

As to the record before us, my reading of the transcript suggests that the school officials at Ribault Junior High School, not S.H.B., caused the disruption which allegedly occurred. The assistant principal testified:

“A When this group of boys saw me coming — they was running through the hall and I yelled to them to stop. They kept moving and the teachers were coming to the door. The other students was looking.
Q So the activity that you’re describing was their being in the hall — moving through the hall?
A Yes.
Q Was the defendant himself saying anything?
A I wasn’t close enough to see.
Q How far away from him were you, sir?
A How far? I guess 15 feet — 20 feet.
Q 15 feet, and you didn’t hear the defendant say a word?
A Let me see if I understand you, sir. When I came through the hall — it’s my job to clear'the hall after the tardy bell.
Q I understand that.
A There was disturbance in the hall. There was noise whether it was [S.H.B.] or not — it was noise and I was sent to clear the hall.
Q Then it is your testimony that you don’t know if [S.H.B.] said anything or not when he was in the hall?
A The group was talking.
******
One further question. You stated on direct examination that the teachers and students came to the doors when you yelled for the defendant and the other members of the group to stop. Could the fact that they came to the doors or windows be related to your yelling down the hall as opposed to the defendant being in the hall?
No. No. <1
But you did yell down the hall? O*
When I got there, yes. <
Did the defendant yell back down the hall toward you? Q*
No.”

There may well be disciplinary problems in the public schools today. I am not persuaded, however, that the validation of a vague dragnet statute or the confirmation of an unsupported conviction are appropriate ways to solve them.

HATCHETT, Judge,

dissenting.

The statute under challenge in this case, even as narrowly construed by the majority, still suffers from the constitutional infirmity of overbreadth since it is susceptible of application to protected speech. Unless this statute is further narrowed in a manner consistent with the opinion of this Court in State v. Saunders, 339 So.2d 641 (Fla.1976), and with the decisions of the federal courts on this subject, this statute will remain invalid on its face. Although an allegedly vague statute may be reviewed on a case by case basis, as to whether it gives adequate notice to any citizen whom the authorities prosecute under the statute, an overly broad statute must be authoritatively construed so that it does not operate as a deterrent to the exercise of citizen’s rights of free expression. Nobody can be punished under a statute purporting to outlaw spoken words, if the statute would be unconstitutional as applied to anybody. The present statute should be narrowed so as to apply only to those disturbances caused by a narrow class of unprotected speech or conduct as defined in Saunders.

An unconstitutional criminal statute should not be upheld merely because it is being applied to high school students rather than adults. Clearly, school authorities should have broad discretionary authority in the daily operation of the public schools. This includes wide latitude with respect to maintaining discipline and order. School authorities presently possess broad discretion in formulating and implementing school disciplinary regulations. Such regulations do not require the same degree of specificity necessary in our criminal statutes. In Alex v. Allen, 409 F.Supp. 379 (W.D.Pa.1976), the Court upheld a school regulation being challenged on the grounds of vagueness and overbreadth. The Court stated that such disciplinary rules need to be considered under a looser standard than the test applied to criminal statutes. In addition, the Court stated that the looser standard of constitutional review of high school regulations is appropriate because of the greater authority possessed by the state to regulate the conduct of children as opposed to that of adults. In implementing these looser regulations, school authorities possess a wide range of remedies, from suspensions and expulsions to corporal punishment. The application of these disciplinary measures need only to comply with minimum due process requirements. However, when the state wishes to impose the full force of our criminal laws, juveniles should be afforded the same due process rights given to adults.

ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.

      . Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const. and In re Fuller, 255 So.2d 1 (Fla.1971).

      . White v. State, 330 So.2d 3, 7 (Fla. 1976).

      . State v. Wershow, 343 So.2d 605 (Fla.1977).

      . Cf., D’Alemberte v. Anderson, 349 So.2d 164 (Fla.1977), where the Court held invalid a statute prohibiting conduct evaluated from the viewpoint of hypothetically reasonable men rather than the person charged with the crime.

      . The record suggests that the trial judge was more concerned with the general problem of school discipline rather than the question of whether a violation of law occurred in this case. After S.H.B.’s counsel had made his closing argument, the court made these observations:
      “THE COURT: [Counsel], you have made a very good presentation. What I’m going to say has no bearing on your presentation. It was well given, but if every child was allowed to do as he pleased in the halls as this young man did, we would have no school system, period. * * * If every student was allowed to roam the halls at will cursing the personnel, there would be absolutely no harmony. No nothing. The school system has a hard enough time at the moment and things like this just simply can’t go on.”

      . Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942); Wiegand v. Seaver, 504 F.2d 303 (5th Cir. 1974).

      . State v. Saunders, supra, 339 So.2d at 644.

      . Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 95 S.Ct. 2222, 44 L.Ed.2d 600 (1975); Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22.

      . State v. Saunders, supra, 339 So.2d at 644.

      . See Black Coalition v. Portland School District No. 1, 484 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1973); Fenton v. Stear, 423 F.Supp. 767 (W.D.Pa.1976); Graham v. Board of Education, Idabel School District No. 5, 419 F.Supp. 1214 (E.D.Okla. 1976).

      . The defendant might have been properly prosecuted for trespass, pursuant to Sec. 810.-08 or Sec. 810.09, Fla.Stat. (1975), by his remaining on school grounds after being told to leave by the school authorities.

      . Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed. 725 (1975).


author: SUNDBERG, Justice.

text:
    COLONIAL STORES, INC., a Foreign Corporation, doing business as Big Star Food Stores and Clyde D. Carter, Petitioners, v. Doyle Wayne SCARBROUGH, Respondent.
    No. 50723.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Dec. 8, 1977.
    As Corrected On Denial of Rehearing Feb. 27, 1978.

      George L. Hudspeth and James A. Bled-soe, Jr. of Mahoney, Hadlow & Ada,ms, Jacksonville, for petitioners.
    Law Offices of Stephen H. Davis, and Richard G. Rumrell, Jacksonville, and Gerald B. Curington of Smathers & Thompson, Miami, for respondent.
   SUNDBERG, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 338 So.2d 1119, which is alleged to be in conflict with McKinney v. Dade County, 341 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), on the issue of whether the filing of an information by the state attorney in a criminal prosecution raises, in a subsequent malicious prosecution action based upon that criminal proceeding, a presumption of probable cause to believe that the criminal defendant was guilty of the offense charged. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

Respondent, Doyle Wayne Scarbrough, filed a two-count complaint against petitioners, Colonial Stores, Inc. and Clyde D. Carter, seeking damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution after he was arrested and jailed without bond for the robbery of a Big Star Food Store. Petitioner Clyde D. Carter, the store manager for Big Star Food Store, was one of the two witnesses present during the robbery and allegedly observed the physical characteristics of the robber. Carter had noticed the robber earlier that day when the bandit requested that Carter change a one-hundred-dollar bill for a nearby store, All Jax Auto Parts. Immediately after the robbery, Carter telephoned the police to report the crime. A patrolman arrived at the store in response to the call and, from his interview with the two eye witnesses, prepared a description report. The next morning the City of Jacksonville police received a telephone call from an unidentified caller who stated that the automobile and the individual involved in the robbery were traveling on a particular city street. Respondent asserts that this call was made by Carter. A “be on the look out” was issued for a suspect traveling in a 1955 Ford having a Texas license tag. Later that day the automobile was apprehended by officers of the Jacksonville Beach police department, and the occupant, respondent Scarbrough, was held. The respondent was later arrested without a warrant based upon the description report which described the armed robber in general terms, and the anonymous telephone call.

Earlier that day, Carter visited All Jax Auto Parts to ask whether an employee had been sent to Big Star Food Store to obtain change. Respondent asserts that during this episode Carter described the suspect to an All Jax Auto Parts employee. Carter’s assistant manager was later informed that the description was that of one Joseph Tanner, a longtime friend of the All Jax Auto Parts owner. An affidavit was executed by the police and a lineup was thereafter held in which both eye witnesses identified respondent. Based on this affidavit, the state attorney filed a direct information against respondent. Approximately two months thereafter, Joseph Tanner confessed to the robbery. This confession led to a nolle prosequi of respondent’s case. Scarbrough was incarcerated continuously from the time of his arrest until the charge was nolle prossed. Incarcération apparently contributed to respondent’s unstable personality. He became severely depressed, lost touch with his family while in prison, and eventually tried to commit suicide after his release.

Respondent brought suit for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. After the trial court’s denial of petitioners’ motion for a directed verdict with respect to both the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution counts the case went to the jury. The trial court instructed the jury that the filing of an information against respondent gave rise to a presumption of probable cause. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of respondent and a final judgment was entered by the court.

Petitioners appealed to the District Court of Appeal, First District, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in their favor with respect to the malicious prosecution count in that the state attorney’s filing of an information against respondent created a presumption of probable cause to which the trial court failed to accord proper effect. The district court disagreed, holding that no presumption of probable cause arose from the filing of an information. The court accepted respondent’s argument on cross-appeal, that the trial court erred in charging the jury that the filing of an information against him gave rise to a presumption of probable cause. However, the district court failed to find reversible error as to respondent on this ground. With respect to petitioners, the court held that as the jury charge was in petitioners’ favor, it merely constituted harmless error.

Although the jury was charged separately as to the malicious prosecution and the false imprisonment counts, it returned a general verdict for respondent. Consequently, it was impossible to determine the count(s) upon which the judgment was based. Petitioners contended that under the circumstances if there were error as to either count the district court should overturn the judgment, as the jury may have based its verdict on the faulty count. The district court rejected this contention, holding that as the judgment could be sustained on sufficient evidence of malicious prosecution, it would affirm the judgment without deciding the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the false imprisonment count.

For the reasons hereinafter enunciated, we hereby approve the district court’s decision.

In support of their argument on appeal that a presumption of probable cause should have arisen from the state attorney’s decision to prosecute respondent Scarbrough, petitioners relied upon this Court’s decision in Gallucci v. Milavic, 100 So.2d 375 (Fla.1958). In Gallucci, we held that in a malicious prosecution suit a presumption arises from a magistrate’s finding of probable cause which is conclusive, absent fraud or other corrupt means employed by the person initiating the prosecution. However, the district court declined to accord the Gallucci presumption to a prosecutor’s decision. In so doing, the district court distinguished Ward v. Allen, 152 Fla. 82, 11 So.2d 193 (1942), and Meade v. Super Test Sales, Inc., 306 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). The Meade court merely found that there was reasonable cause for the state attorney’s decision to prosecute. Similarly, Ward v. Allen held that the filing of an information constitutes evidence tending to show grounds for prosecution, but it did not give such evidence a presumptive effect.

Subsequent to rendition of the district court’s opinion in the case at bar, the District Court of Appeal, Third District, decided the case of McKinney v. Dade County, supra, upon which conflict herein is based. There, the district court held that when a prosecuting attorney files an information against a defendant, he conclusively determines that the evidence is adequate to establish probable cause. Accordingly, the district court affirmed a trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a malicious prosecution suit, on the issue of liability. The McKinney court relied upon this Court’s decision in State ex rel. Hardy v. Blount, 261 So.2d 172 (Fla.1972), which held that the finding of probable cause by a state attorney, evinced by the filing of an information, has the same practical effect as an identical finding by a magistrate. This is so because in either case the determination has been made by a constitutional officer. Article V, Sections 5, 6, and 17, Florida Constitution. Hardy, however, fails to constitute a valid basis for petitioners’ position in the present case for two reasons: First, in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 106, 116-117, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), the United States Supreme Court overturned Hardy, refusing to find the prosecutor’s filing of an information to be the constitutional equivalent of a magistrate’s finding of probable cause. Second, Hardy is factually distinguishable from the case at bar because it involved the right of a pre-trial detainee, arrested without a warrant and charged by information, to a judicial probable cause determination. For the policy reasons enunciated in Ger-stein, we decline to accord to a prosecutor’s decision the presumptive effect in a malicious prosecution action proposed by petitioners.

In Gerstein, the Supreme Court noted that “a prosecutor’s responsibility to law enforcement is inconsistent with the constitutional role of a neutral and detached magistrate.” Id. at 117, 95 S.Ct. at 865, citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 449-453, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). Accord, Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345, 92 S.Ct. 2119, 32 L.Ed.2d 783 (1972). The reason for this separation of functions was expressed by Mr. Justice Frankfurter:

Zeal in tracking down crime is not in itself assurance of soberness of judgment. The awful instruments of the criminal law cannot be entrusted to a single functionary. The complicated process of criminal justice is divided into different parts, responsibility for which is separately vested in the various participants upon whom the criminal law relies for its vindication.
McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 343, 63 S.Ct. 608, 614, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943).

Our holding today does not constitute a degradation of the role of the prosecutor, but rather is a recognition of the proper function of this executive official in our criminal justice system. The prosecutor’s ultimate duty is to vindicate the State’s interest in enforcing its criminal laws. In contrast, the magistrate’s role, as a member of the judiciary, is to remain wholly disinterested — to “see both sides of the case,” with bias toward neither.

It has been argued that this Court’s failure to extend the Galiucci presumption to a state attorney’s decision to prosecute will have a chilling effect on law enforcement efforts. It is theorized that citizens will be reluctant to report crimes absent the “protection” of a presumption of probable cause, because of fear that they may thereafter become a defendant in a malicious prosecution action. We find this argument untenable. Prior to rendition of the district court’s decision in McKinney v. Dade County, supra, in February, 1977, this State’s decisional authority accorded no presumptive effect in a malicious prosecution action to a prosecutor’s filing of an information. This presumption applied solely to a judicial determination of probable cause. See Gold-stein v. Sabella, 88 So.2d 910 (Fla.1956); Ward v. Allen, supra; Thompson v. Taylor, 183 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).

It has neither been argued nor shown that these decisions resulted in the threatened “chilling effect” upon the reporting of crimes by citizens. In addition, a cause of action for malicious prosecution is not sustainable solely upon a showing of lack of probable cause; malice must also be established. Gallucci v. Milavic, supra; Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878 (1931); Tatum Brothers Real Estate & Investment Co. v. Watson, 92 Fla. 278, 109 So. 623 (1926). It is recognized that malice may be inferred from the absence of probable cause. Adams v. Whitfield, 290 So.2d 49 (Fla.1974); Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, supra. However, malice is not legally synonymous with the absence of probable cause. White v. Miami Home Milk Producers Association, 143 Fla. 518, 197 So. 125 (1940). The inference of malice from the absence of probable cause is not one of law but merely a presumption of fact which may be rebutted. This is an inference which the jury is not required to draw, and which it should not draw if other facts disclosed by the evidence lead to a different conclusion. See Tatum Brothers Real Estate & Investment Co. v. Watson, supra.

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s holding in the instant case that, in a malicious prosecution action, no presumption of probable cause arises from the filing of an information with respect to the charge upon which such action is based. We adhere to our earlier declaration in Ward v. Allen, supra, that the filing of an information merely constitutes evidence of reasonable grounds for the prosecution.

Petitioners contend that the district court erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment based solely upon its determination that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict on the malicious prosecution count. In the trial court, the jury received separate instructions with respect to the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution counts. However, petitioners failed to request a special verdict as to each count and to object to submission of a general verdict to the jury. The jury thereafter returned a general verdict in favor of respondent Scarbrough. This raises an issue with respect to which authorities among different jurisdictions are divided. The question arises where two or more issues are left to the jury, and of which may be determinative of the case, and a general verdict is returned, making it impossible to ascertain the issue(s) upon which the verdict was founded. One line of authority holds that reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of the issues, as the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced. Berger v. Southern Pacific Co., 144 Cal.App.2d 1, 300 P.2d 170 (Cal. 1st DCA 1956); Altieri v. Peattie Motors, Inc., 121 Conn. 316, 185 A. 75 (1936); Knisely v. Community Traction Co., 125 Ohio St. 131, 180 N.E. 654 (1932); Dwyer v. Christensen, 77 S.D. 381, 92 N.W.2d 199 (1958). This is known in jurisprudence as the “two issue” rule. It is a rule of policy, designed to simplify the work of the trial courts and to limit the scope of proceedings on review. See Harper v. Henry, 110 Ohio App. 233, 169 N.E.2d 20 (Ct.App.1959).

The weight of authority to the contrary mandates a reversal where error has affected one issue unless it is clear that the complaining party has not been injured thereby. Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19, 82 S.Ct. 1130, 8 L.Ed.2d 305 (1962); State of Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490, 5 S.Ct. 278, 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884); Maccia v. Tynes, 39 N.J.Super. 1, 120 A.2d 263 (N.J.App.1956); Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966).

We believe that the “two issue” rule represents the better view. At first thought, it may seem that injustice might result in some cases from adoption of this rule. It should be remembered, however, that the remedy is always in the hands of counsel. Counsel may simply request a special verdict as to each count in the case. See Harper v. Henry, supra. Then, there will be no question with respect to the jury’s conclusion as to each. If the trial court fails to submit such verdicts to the jury, counsel may raise an appropriate objection.

Had petitioners in the instant case requested special verdicts and objected to submission of a general verdict form to the jury, it would have been necessary for the district court to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the false imprisonment count as well as the malicious prosecution count. If there was error as to either count, the district court should then remand the case for a new trial as to both counts. However, petitioners failed to meet these requirements. Where the district court determines under these circumstances that one of the issues submitted to the jury was free from prejudicial error, it will be presumed that all issues were decided in favor of the prevailing party and the judgment will be affirmed. See Larriva v. Widmer, 101 Ariz. 1, 415 P.2d 424 (1966).

Consequently, the district court properly held that as the judgment in favor of respondent was sustainable on sufficient evidence of malicious prosecution, the judgment should be affirmed without deciding the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the false imprisonment count.

The decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, is approved, and the writ of certiorari is discharged.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.


author: PER CURIAM. KARL, Justice,

text:
    THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner, v. Marilyn R. BRUMBAUGH, Respondent.
    No. 48803.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Jan. 10, 1978.
    Rehearing Denied April 5, 1978.

      R. Layton Mank, Chairman, Standing Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, Miami, Richard C. McFarlain, Asst. Director-Legal, Tallahassee, Young Joe Simmons, Counsel, Ocala and William B. Wiley and John A. Weiss, Asst. Staff Counsels, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, petitioner.
    Marilyn R. Brumbaugh, in pro. per.
   PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar has filed a petition charging Marilyn Brumbaugh with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting her from further engaging in these allegedly unlawful acts. We have jurisdiction under our constitutional authority to adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all the courts of this state. Article V, Section 2(a), Florida Constitution (1968). We now issue an injunction, delineating in this opinion those acts of respondent which we deem to constitute the unauthorized practice of law, and ordering her to stop such activities.

Respondent, Marilyn Brumbaugh, is not and has never been a member of the Florida Bar, and is, therefore, not licensed to practice law within this state. She has advertised in various local newspapers as “Marilyn’s Secretarial Service” offering to perform typing services for “Do-It-Yourself” divorces, wills, resumes, and bankruptcies. The Florida Bar charges that she performed unauthorized legal services by preparing for her customers those legal documents necessary in an uncontested dissolution of marriage proceeding and by advising her customers as to the costs involved and the procedures which should be followed in order to obtain a dissolution of marriage. For this service, Ms. Brumbaugh charges a fee of $50.

Of course, we must determine whether the Florida Bar has presented sufficient evidence in the record before us to prove that respondent has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. But, in cases such as this, the Florida Supreme Court is not confined to act solely in its judicial capacity. In addition, it acts in its administrative capacity as chief policy maker, regulating the administration of the court system and supervising all persons who are engaged in rendering legal advice to members of the general public. Such authority carries with it the responsibility to perform this task in a way responsive to the needs and desires of our citizens. This principle has long been our goal. In State v. Sperry, 140 So.2d 587, 595 (Fla.1962), we noted:

The reason for prohibiting the practice of law by those who have not been examined and found qualified to practice is frequently misunderstood. It is not done to aid or protect the members of the legal profession either in creating or maintaining a monopoly or closed shop. It is done to protect the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by unqualified persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little, if any, control in the matter of infractions of the code of conduct which, in the public interest, lawyers are bound to observe.

The Florida Bar as an agent of this Court, plays a large role in the enforcement of court policies and rules and has been active in regulating and disciplining unethical conduct by its members. Because of the natural tendency of all professions to act in their own self interest, however, this Court must closely scrutinize all regulations tending to limit competition in the delivery of legal services to the public, and determine whether or not such regulations- are truly in the public interest. Indeed, the active role of state supreme courts in the regulation of the practice of law (when such regulation is subject to pointed reexamination by the state court as policy maker) is accorded great deference and exemption from federal interference under the Sherman Act. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2698, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977).

The United States Supreme Court has recently decided issues which may drastically change the practice of law throughout the country, especially with regards to advertising and price competition among attorneys. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, supra; Goldfarb, et al. v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 95 S.Ct. 2004, 44 L.Ed.2d 572 (1975). In addition, the Supreme Court has affirmed the fundamental constitutional right of all persons to represent themselves in court proceedings, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). In Faretta, the Supreme Court emphasized that an attorney is merely an assistant who helps a citizen protect his legal rights and present his case to the courts. A person should not be forced to have an attorney represent his legal interests if he does not consent to such representation. It is imperative for us to analyze these cases and determine how their holdings and the policies behind them affect our regulation of the legal profession in this state.

With regard to the charges made against Marilyn Brumbaugh, this Court appointed a referee to receive evidence and to make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations as to the disposition of the case. The referee found that respondent, under the guise of a “secretarial” or “typing” service prepares, for a fee, all papers deemed by her to be needed for the pleading, filing, and securing of a dissolution of marriage, as well as detailed instructions as to how the suit should be filed, notice served, hearings set, trial conducted, and the final decree secured. The referee also found that in one instance, respondent prepared a quit claim deed in reference to the marital property of the parties. The referee determined that respondent’s contention that she merely operates a typing service is rebutted by numerous facts in evidence. Ms. Brumbaugh has no blank forms either to sell or to fill out. Rather, she types up the documents for her customers after they have asked her to prepare a petition or an entire set of dissolution of marriage papers. Prior to typing up the papers, respondent asks her customers whether custody, child support, or alimony is involved. Respondent has four sets of dissolution of marriage papers, and she chooses which set is appropriate for the particular customer. She then types out those papers, filling in the blank spaces with the appropriate information. Respondent instructs her customers how the papers are to be signed, where they are to be filed, and how the customer should arrange for a final hearing.

Marilyn Brumbaugh, who is representing herself in proceedings before this Court, has made various objections to the procedure and findings of fact of the referee. Respondent alleges that the referee has an inherent conflict of interest because he is a lawyer and a member of The Florida Bar. She asserts that “all lawyers have a property interest in this case, because they have been making money, running typing services, without proper licenses.” She further alleges that the referee did not provide her with a proper hearing, that he threw her in jail for pleading the Fifth Amendment, and denied her her constitutional right to a jury trial. Respondent argues that she has never held herself out as an attorney, and has never professed to have legal skills. She does not give advice, but acts merely as a secretary. She is a licensed counselor, and asserts the right to talk to people and to let her customers make decisions for themselves. Finally, respondent contends that her civil rights have been violated, and that she has been denied the right to make an honest living.

This case does not arise out of a complaint by any of Ms. Brumbaugh’s customers as to improper advice or unethical conduct. It has been initiated by members of The Florida Bar who believe her to be practicing law without a license. The evidence introduced at the hearing below shows that none of respondent’s customers believed that she was an attorney', or that she w¥s' acting as an attorney in their behalf. Respondent’s advertisements clearly addressed themselves to people who wish to do their own divorces. These customers knew that they had to have “some type of papers” to file in order to obtain their dissolution of marriage. Respondent never handled contested divorces. During the past two years respondent has assisted several hundred customers in obtaining their own divorces. The record shows that while some of her customers told respondent exactly what they wanted, generally respondent would ask her customers for the necessary information needed to fill out the divorce papers, such as the names and addresses of the parties, the place and duration of residency in this state, whether there was any property settlement to be resolved, or any determination as to custody and support of children. Finally, each petition contained the bare allegation that the marriage was irretrievably broken. Respondent would then inform the parties as to which documents needed to be signed, by whom, how many copies of each paper should be filed, where and when they should be filed, the costs involved, and what witness testimony is necessary at the court hearing. Apparently, Ms. Brumbaugh no longer informs the parties verbally as to the proper procedures for the filing of the papers, but offers to let them copy papers described as “suggested procedural education.”

The Florida Bar argues that the above activities of respondent violate the rulings of this Court in The Florida Bar v. American Legal and Business Forms, Inc., 274 So.2d 225 (Fla.1973), and The Florida Bar v. Stupica, 300 So.2d 683 (Fla.1974). In those decisions we held that it is lawful to sell to the public printed legal forms, provided they do not carry with them what purports to be instructions on how to fill out such forms or how to use them. We stated that legal advice is inextricably involved in the filling out and advice as to how to use such legal forms, and therein lies the danger of injury or damage to the public if not properly performed in accordance with law. In Stupica, supra, this Court rejected the rationale of the New York courts in New York County Lawyer’s Association v. Dacey, 28 A.D.2d 161, 283 N.Y.S.2d 984, reversed and dissenting opinion adopted 21 N.Y.2d 694, 287 N.Y.S.2d 422, 234 N.E.2d 459 (N.Y.1967), which held that the publication of forms and instructions on their use does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law if these instructions are addressed to the public in general rather than to a specific individual legal problem. The Court in Dacey stated that the possibility that the principles or rules set forth in the text may be accepted by a particular reader as solution to his problem, does not mean that the publisher is practicing law. Other states have, adopted the principle of law set forth in Dacey, holding that the sale of legal forms with instructions for their use does not constitute unauthorized practice of law. See State Bar of Michigan v. Cramer, 399 Mich. 116, 249 N.W.2d 1 (1976); Oregon State Bar v. Gilchrist, 272 Or. 552, 538 P.2d 913 (1975). However, these courts have prohibited all personal contact between the service providing such forms and the customer, in the nature of consultation, explanation, recommendation, advice, or other assistance in selecting particular forms, in filling out any part of the forms, suggesting or advising how the forms should be used in solving the particular problems.

Although persons not licensed as attorneys are prohibited from practicing law within this state, it is somewhat difficult to define exactly what constitutes the practice of law in all instances. This Court has previously stated that:

. if the giving of such advice and performance of such services affect important rights of a person under the law, and if the reasonable protection of the rights and property of those advised and served requires that the persons giving such advice possess legal skill and a knowledge of the law greater than that possessed by the average citizen, then the giving of such advice and the performance of such services by one for another as a course of conduct constitute the practice of law.

Sperry, supra, 140 So.2d at 591.

This definition is broad and is given content by this Court only as it applies to specific circumstances of each case. We agree that “any attempt to formulate a lasting, all encompassing definition of ‘practice of law’ is doomed to failure ‘for the reason that under our system of jurisprudence such practice must necessarily change with the everchanging business and social order.’ ” State Bar of Michigan v. Cramer, supra, 399 Mich. 116, 249 N.W.2d at 7.

In determining whether a particular act constitutes the practice of law, our primary goal is the protection of the public. However, any limitations on the free practice of law by all persons necessarily affects important constitutional rights. Our decision here certainly affects the constitutional rights of Marilyn Brumbaugh to pursue a lawful occupation or business. Prior v. White, 132 Fla. 1, 180 So. 347 (1938); State ex rel. Fulton v. Ives, 123 Fla. 401, 167 So. 394 (1936); State ex rel. Davis v. Rose, 97 Fla. 710, 122 So. 225 (1929). Our decision also affects respondent’s First Amendment rights to speak and print what she chooses. In addition, her customers and potential customers have the constitutional right of self representation, Faretta, supra, and the right of privacy inherent in the marriage relationship, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971). All citizens in our state are also guaranteed access to our courts by Article I, Section 21, Florida Constitution (1968). Although it is not necessary for us to provide affirmative assistance in order to ensure meaningful access to the courts to our citizens, as it is necessary for us to do for those incarcerated in our state prison system, Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), we should not place any unnecessary restrictions upon that right. We should not deny persons who wish to represent themselves access to any source of information which might be relevant in the preparation of their cases. There are numerous texts in our state law libraries which describe our substantive and procedural law, purport to give legal advice to the reader as to choices that should be made in various situations, and which also contain sample legal forms which a reader may use as an example. We generally do not restrict the access of the public to these law libraries, although many of the legal texts are not authored by attorneys licensed to practice in this state. These texts do not carry with them any guarantees of accuracy, and only some of them purport to update statements which have been modified by subsequently enacted statutes and recent case law.

The policy of this Court should continue to be one of encouraging persons who are unsure of their legal rights and remedies to seek legal assistance from persons licensed by us to practice law in this state. However, in order to make an intelligent decision as whether or not to engage the assistance of an attorney, a citizen must be allowed access to information which will help determine the complexity of the legal problem. Once a person has made the decision to represent himself, we should not enforce any unnecessary regulation which might tend to hinder the exercise of this constitutionally protected right. However, any restriction of constitutional rights must be “narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.” Roe v. Wade, supra, NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438, 83 S.Ct. 328, 340, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963). “And if there are other reasonable ways to achieve those goals with a lesser burden on constitutionally protected activity, a state may not choose the way of greater interference. If it acts at all, it must choose less drastic means. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488, 81 S.Ct. 247, 252, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960).

It is also important for us to consider the legislative statute governing dissolution of marriage in resolving the question of what constitutes the practice of law in this area. Florida’s “no fault” dissolution of marriage statute clearly has the remedial purpose of simplifying the dissolution of marriage whenever possible. Sectjon 61.001, Florida Statutes (1975) states:

(1) This chapter shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its purposes.
(2) Its purposes are:
(a) To preserve the integrity of marriage and to safeguard meaningful family relationships;
(b) To promote the amicable settlement of disputes that have arisen between parties to a marriage;
(c) To mitigate the potential harm to the spouses and their children caused by the process of legal dissolution of marriage.

Families usually undergo tremendous financial hardship when they decide to' dissolve their marital relationships. The Legislature simplified procedures so that parties would not need to bear the additional burden of expensive legal fees where they have agreed to the settlement of their property and the custody of their children. This Court should not place unreasonable burdens upon the obtaining of such divorces, especially where both parties consent to the dissolution.

Present dissolution procedures in uncontested situations involve a very simplified method of asserting certain facts required by statute, notice to the other parties affected, and a simple hearing where the trial court may hear proof and make inquiries as to the facts asserted in those pleadings.

The legal forms necessary to obtain such an uncontested dissolution of marriage are susceptible of standardization. This Court has allowed the sale of legal forms on this and other subjects, provided that they do not carry with them what purports to be instructions on how to fill out such forms or how they are to be used. The Florida Bar v. American Legal and Business Forms, Inc., supra; The Florida Bar v. Stupica, supra. These decisions should be reevaluated in light of those recent decisions in other states which have held that the sale of forms necessary to obtain a divorce, together with any related textual instructions directed towards the general public, does not constitute the practice of law. The reasons for allowing the sale of such legal publications which contain sample forms to be used by individuals who wish to represent themselves are persuasive. State Bar of Michigan v. Cramer, supra, reasoned that such instructional material should be no more objectionable than any other publication placed into the stream of commerce which purports to offer general advice on common problems and does not purport to give a person advice on a specific problem particular to a designated or readily identified person. In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 364, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 2699, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977) the Supreme Court discussed at length the substantial interests in the free flow of commercial speech. The Court said that the choice between the dangers of suppressing information and the dangers arising from its free flow is precisely the choice “that the First Amendment makes for us.” There the Court, in approving legal advertising, reasoned that the state cannot assume a paternalistic approach which rests in large part on its citizens being kept in ignorance. The Court stated that we must assume that this information is not in itself harmful, and “that people will perceive their own best interests if only they are well enough informed, and that the best means to that end is to open the channels of communication rather than to close them.”

Although there is a danger that some published material might give false or misleading information, that is not a sufficient reason to justify its total ban. We must assume that our citizens will generally use such publications for what they are worth in the preparation of their cases, and further assume that most persons will not rely on these materials in the same way they would rely on the advice of an attorney or other persons holding themselves out as having expertise in the area. The tendency of persons seeking legal assistance to place their trust in the individual purporting to have expertise in the area necessitates this Court’s regulation of such attorney-client relationships, so as to require that persons giving such advice have at least a minimal amount of legal training and experience. Although Marilyn Brum-baugh never held herself out as an attorney, it is clear that her clients placed some reliance upon her to properly prepare the necessary legal forms for their dissolution proceedings. To this extent we believe that Ms. Brumbaugh overstepped proper bounds and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. We hold that Ms. Brumbaugh, and others in similar situations, may sell printed material purporting to explain legal practice and procedure to the public in general and she may sell sample legal forms. To this extent we limit our prior holdings in Stupica and American Legal and Business Forms, Inc. Further, we hold that it is not improper for Marilyn Brumbaugh to engage in a secretarial service, typing such forms for her clients, provided that she only copy the information given to her in writing by her clients. In addition, Ms. Brum-baugh may advertise her business activities of providing secretarial and notary services and selling legal forms and general printed information. However, Marilyn Brum-baugh must not, in conjunction with her business, engage in advising clients as to the various remedies available to them, or otherwise assist them in preparing those forms necessary for a dissolution proceeding. More specifically, Marilyn Brumbaugh may not make inquiries nor answer questions from her clients as to the particular forms which might be necessary, how best to fill out such forms, where to properly file such forms, and how to present necessary evidence at the court hearings. Our specific holding with regard to the dissolution of marriage also applies to other unauthorized legal assistance such as the preparation of wills or real estate transaction documents. While Marilyn Brumbaugh may legally sell forms in these areas, and type up instruments which have been completed by clients, she must not engage in personal legal assistance in conjunction with her business activities, including the correction of errors and omissions.

Accordingly, having defined the limits within which Ms. Brumbaugh and those engaged in similar activities may conduct their business without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, the rule to show ■ cause is dissolved.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.

KARL, J., concurs specially with an opinion, with which OVERTON, C. J., ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

KARL, Justice,

concurring specially.

There is a popular notion that every attempt to define the practice of law and restrict the activities within the definition to those who are authorized to practice law is nothing more than a method of providing economic protection for lawyers. I recognize that a small number of attorneys who advocate a broad definition of the practice coupled with severe penalties for those who encroach are motivated by economic self-interest. Indeed, regardless of motive, any law or rule that stakes out an area “for lawyers only” will result in some incidental benefit to those who are authorized to practice law — a form of serendipity for them.

What is often lost in the rush to condemn members of the legal profession for alleged selfishness is the existence of a genuine need to protect the public from those who are willing to give legal advice and render legal service, for their own profit, without being competent to do so and without being subject to restraint and punishment if they cause damage to some unsuspecting and uninformed persons in the process. Just as the public must be protected from physical harm inflicted by those who would prescribe drugs and perform surgery without proper training, so must we provide protection from financial and other damage inflicted by pseudo-lawyers.

We could develop a perfect set of disciplinary rules for attorneys and establish a procedure that quickly disbars and delicens-es those who violate the rules, but if we should then permit nonmembers of the bar, including those who have been disbarred, to engage in the same activities as lawyers, we would have accomplished nothing. The members of the public would still be in serious jeopardy.

The problem, so well articulated in the majority opinion, is where to draw the lines between activities that constitute the practice of law and those that do not. There must be a balancing of constitutional rights with the recognized need to protect the public. The broader the definition, the more effective are the disciplinary rules and the greater is the public protection, but the need for protection must give way to rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

I concur with the majority because I am persuaded that the definition of the practice of law developed in The Florida Bar v. American Legal and Business Forms, Inc., 274 So.2d 225 (Fla.1973), and The Florida Bar v. Stupica, 300 So.2d 683 (Fla.1974), is too broad to withstand an attack based on the provisions of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and must, therefore, be contracted. I reject as specious the argument that constitutionally permissible restrictions on activities defined as the practice of law are designed solely to produce high legal fees by discouraging competition and encouraging legal featherbedding.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

      . Speaking for the Court in State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So.2d 587, 595 (Fla.1962), Mr. Justice O’Connell said:
      “If the truth be known the unauthorized practice of law by those not qualified and admitted actually creates work for the legal profession because of the errors and mistakes of those who for other illegally perform legal work they are not competent to perform. In this the members of the legal profession gain, but the unfortunate members of the public who were ill-advised lose, in some instances quite badly.” .


author: HATCHETT, Justice.

text:
    In re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Robert R. PAUNACK.
    No. 50819.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Jan. 12, 1978.
    Rehearing Denied April 5, 1978.
    Joseph C. Rubel, of Metzger, Viviano, Winn & Rubel, Pensacola, for petitioner.
    Donald H. Partington, of Clark, Parting-ton, Hart & Hart, Pensacola, for respondent.
   HATCHETT, Justice.

In this case we must decide whether, in an involuntary hospitalization proceeding where competency is to be determined, the trial judge must specifically find whether or not the alleged incompetent is represented by counsel and whether or not counsel should be afforded. The First District Court of Appeal answered this question in the negative. In Re: The Guardianship of Paunack, 339 So.2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We reverse.

On January 8, 1974, at a hearing for involuntary hospitalization, petitioner, a 91 year old man, was adjudged incompetent. Thereafter, the Citizen and Peoples National Bank of Pensacola was appointed guardian of his property and his granddaughter was appointed guardian of his person. On June 2,1976, Mr. Paunack filed a petition to invalidate the adjudication and to remove his court appointed guardians alleging, inter alia, that the order of incompetency failed to state whether or not he was represented by counsel and whether or not counsel was necessary. Petition was denied, and on appeal the First District Court affirmed. In Re: The Guardianship of Paunack, supra.

Conflict is asserted with In Re: Hnat, 250 So.2d 890 (Fla.1971). In that case, this Court, considering Section 394.22(4), Florida Statutes (1971) (now repealed), held that in the absence of counsel for the alleged incompetent, a court must inquire into and expressly determine whether representation is necessary. Failure to do so vitiates the incompetency order and requires a new hearing. We stated:

implicit from the wording of the statute is the admonition that in the absence of counsel the court must determine whether representation should be afforded, a circumstance which cannot be garnered from a silent record on this point . . . (at page 891)

Although the pertinent part of the statute considered in Hnat was modified between

the time of the decision in that case and the decision here under review, the language in the new statute is stricter, making the judge’s duty as to representation mandatory rather than permissive, and does not, therefore, affect the viability of In Re: Hnat, supra. We have jurisdiction, Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

Section 394.467(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1973), the statute under which petitioner was found incompetent provides:

The judge may adjudicate a person incompetent pursuant to the provisions of this act, at the hearing on hospitalization. . . . (emphasis added)

That section was enacted as a part of Chapter 71-131, Laws of Florida, popularly known as the Baker Act. Section 12 of the Act (amending Section 744.31, Florida Statutes (1971)) specifically prescribes the procedure to be followed in an adjudication of incompetency and provides in pertinent part:

No guardian of the person or of the property or both, of a person alleged to be mentally or physically incompetent shall be appointed until after such person has been adjudicated to be incompetent in proceedings instituted for that purpose, as follows:
(4) . . . an opportunity to be represented by counsel shall be afforded to every alleged incompetent, and if he cannot afford an attorney, the court shall appoint one.

The Legislature had reference to Chapter 71-131, Laws of Florida, specifically Section 12 thereof, when, in Section 9 of the same act, it referred to the adjudication of incompetency “pursuant to the provisions of this act.” It is evident that the legislature intended the due process safeguards laid down in Section 12 to be applicable in a Section 9 proceeding wherein competency is to be determined.

The reasoning and law expressed in In Re: Hnat, supra, are equally applicable under the old and the new statute. In order to protect the rights afforded to the alleged incompetent by the Legislature, a trial judge must specifically find whether or not the alleged incompetent is represented by counsel in any hearing where incompetency is to be determined, and whether or not counsel should be afforded. ' Failure to make such a finding constitutes reversible error.

Accordingly, the decision of the First District Court of Appeal is quashed and the cause remanded with instructions to reverse the order denying the petition to invalidate the incompetency order.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG and KARL, JJ., concur.

OVERTON, C. J., dissents.

      . Section 394.22(4), Florida Statutes (1971), provided: “ . . .an opportunity to be represented by counsel shall be afforded to every proposed patient, and if neither he nor others provide counsel, the court way appoint counsel.”

      . Section 744.31(4), Florida Statutes (1973), as amended by Chapter 71-131, Laws of Florida, which was applicable at the time of the incompetency order of Mr. Paunack, provides: “ . . .an opportunity to be represented by counsel shall be afforded to every alleged incompetent, and if he cannot afford an attorney, the court shall appoint one. (emphasis added)


author: ENGLAND, Justice.

text:
    SARASOTA COUNTY, Florida, and Mary J. Orr, as Supervisor of Elections, Appellants, v. TOWN OF LONGBOAT KEY, Florida, City of Sarasota, Florida, City of Venice, Florida, and City of North Port, Florida, Appellees.
    No. 52214.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Jan. 19, 1978.
    Rehearing Denied March 16, 1978.

      Richard E. Nelson, Richard L. Smith and Leslie Telford, of Nelson, Hesse, Cyril & Weber, Sarasota, and Talbot D’Alemberte and Donald M. Middlebrooks, of Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, for appellants.
    John R. Wood and I. W. Whitesell, Jr., of Wood, Whitesell & Karp, Sarasota, for Town of Longboat Key.
    William C. Strode and William M. Hereford, of Strode, Hereford & Taylor, Sarasota, for City of Sarasota.
    Charles F. Wheeler, of Korp & Wheeler, Venice, for City of Venice.
    Allen J. Levin, Port Charlotte, for City of North Port, appellees.
    Ralph A. Marsicano, Gen. Counsel, for Florida League of Cities, Inc., Tampa.
    Burton M. Michaels, Staff Atty. for Florida League of Cities, Inc., Tallahassee, ami-cus curiae.
   ENGLAND, Justice.

The Sarasota County Commission adopted an ordinance proposing five amendments to the county charter which would transfer the responsibilities for performing five distinct governmental functions from four Sarasota County cities to the county. Four of the affected cities challenged the proposed amendments in court before they could be voted on by the residents of Sarasota County, and in due course they obtained from the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court a permanent injunction prohibiting the referendum on the dual grounds that the ordinance attempts an unconstitutional “consolidation” in violation of Article VIII, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and is unconstitutionally vague. Inasmuch as the trial court construed a provision of the Constitution, appeal of the trial court’s ruling to this Court is appropriate.

The five proposed amendments adopted by the County Commission are identical in their terminology except for the delineation of the different services and functions in each. The first reads:

“Section 1.4:“ Consolidation of Air and Water Pollution Control Services and Functions.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, all municipal air and water pollution control services and functions and all county air and water pollution control services and functions shall be consolidated and provided by this county government. The Board of County Commissioners shall have power to carry out and enforce this section by appropriate ordinances which, notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, shall prevail over any municipal ordinances in conflict therewith.”

Significant principles of local government autonomy are at stake m this proceeding. The cities seek to enjoin a voter referendum on these amendments out of a general concern that municipalities could be effectively abolished if a county government were free to propose for county-wide voter approval, and without the separate approval of the affected municipality’s voters, the transfer of city functions to the county level of government. The respective concerns of the cities and the county quite naturally implicate several provisions of the Florida Constitution.

At the heart of this controversy is Article VIII, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, entitled “Consolidation”, which describes the manner in which the governments of counties and municipalities may be consolidated. Of equal importance in our consideration of the issues presented is Article VIII, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution, entitled “Transfer of powers”, which specifies the method by which any function or power of a county or municipality may be transferred to or performed by another governmental unit. Also relevant to these proceedings are subsections 1(f) and 1(g) of Article VIII, Florida Constitution, which define the limit of powers for non-charter and charter governments, respectively.

The major contentions of the parties are more easily understood if each is discussed separately.

1. Does the ordinance propose a “consolidation” under Article VIII, Section 31

The trial judge enjoined a countywide voter referendum of the five amendments on the grounds that a “consolidation” of municipal services into the county would result, and that the amendments obviously do not comport with the requirement of Article VIII, Section 3 to the effect that consolidation must be proposed by “special law”. We disagree with the trial court’s premise, for despite their denomination by the Sarasota County Commission as “consolidation” amendments, it is apparent that the proposed amendments do not effect a consolidation within the meaning of Article VIII, Section 3. The process provided in that provision is the unification of the government of a county and the government of one or more municipalities “into a single government”, which would then exercise the powers previously held by both or all of the consolidated units. This provision of the Constitution applies only when one or more of the underlying governments disappears or is merged into the government of the surviving unit.

2. Is the ordinance unconstitutionally vague ?

The trial judge specifically held that the proposed charter amendments were vague, in that they did not specify the manner in which property, services or functions would be transferred from the cities to the county. Although it is true that the proposed amendments provide no roadmap for the assignment of functions or the transfer of property or monies as between the municipalities and the county, we do not find that omission to be a basis to strike them as unconstitutionally vague. The amendments are not self-executing. They specifically provide that additional ordinances will be adopted to implement the proposal when and if the voters of the county approve the transfers. We think it is permissible to proceed in this fashion, and that the orderly processes of government initially require no more than a determination of the proper place for the functions to be assigned. To require that details be precisely defined before the voters may approve a transfer of functions would burden county commissions with potentially unnecessary minutiae which, even at the approval stage, might require additional litigation. The amendments are not “clearly and conclusively defective” by reason of vagueness.

3. Does the ordinance constitute an attempted transfer of powers under Article VIII, Section 41

The trial judge did not expressly rule on the cities’ contention that the County Commission has essentially proposed a transfer of powers, a procedure governed by Article VIII, Section 4 of the Constitution. The municipalities, joined by the Florida League of Cities, reassert that argument here. None of the parties seriously disputes the notion that this proceeding really involves a proposed transfer of functions between different units of government. The cities simply claim that the county’s ordinance does not comply with Article VIII, Section 4 since it was initiated neither “by law” nor by resolution of all affected governments. Sarasota County suggests that charter counties are excluded from Article VIII, Section 4 by reason of Article VIII, Section 1(g), or alternately that the transfer requirements of Article VIII, Section 4 are met by Section 125.86(7), Florida Statutes (1975). For the following reasons we conclude that the cities’ position is the correct one.

The county suggests that because it operates under a charter form of government, Section 1(g) of Article VIII alone governs its powers. We do not agree. Section 4 of Article VIII refers to “counties”, without distinction. The same term is used throughout the Constitution to refer both to charter and to non-charter counties. Where there has been an intent to distinguish the two forms of county government, it has been done explicitly. Not only are we disinclined to read into Section 4 something that is not expressly provided, but we are all the more reluctant to elevate the general provisions of Article VIII, Section 1(g) to a dominant position over the specific provisions of Article VIII, Section 4. We hold that Section 4 applies both to charter and non-charter counties.

We also reject the county’s assertion that Article VIII, Section 4 contemplates a law of general applicability such as Section 125.86(7), by which counties may accomplish the transfer of municipal functions by county resolution. A plain reading of Article VIII, Section 4 reflects that a transfer of governmental powers requires distinctive procedures for the initiation of a transfer, that is, “by law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected.” We think it clear from the specificity of the procedure in Section 4 that the “by law” reference connotes the need for a separate legislative act addressed to a specific transfer, in the same manner that two or more resolutions of the affected governments would address a specific transfer. Section 125.86(7), in contrast, does no more than provide general authority for county commissions to exercise police powers. It in no way provides “by law” the procedures necessary to initiate the transfer of governmental functions or powers.

We conclude, therefore, that Sarasota County’s five proposed amendments constitute attempts to transfer powers and functions from the cities to the county within Article VIII, Section 4, but because the procedure by which the transfers have been proposed does not comport with the requirements of that Section, the county’s resolution is ineffective for that purpose.

We affirm the order-of the Circuit Court of Sarasota County permanently enjoining a referendum on the five proposed amendments.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J, and BOYD, SUND-BERG, HATCHETT and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur.

      . The functions to be transferred are air and water pollution control, parks and recreation, roads and bridges, planning and zoning, and police.

      . The Town of Longboat Key joined in bringing the suit although it actually lies within both Sarasota County and Manatee County.

      . The ordinance was originally adopted on an emergency basis on September 21, 1976, and scheduled for voter approval on November 2, 1976. The cities obtained temporary injunctive relief to prevent the November 2 referendum, which the county did not contest by certiorari to this Court until after that date. By an order dated February 25, 1977, we rejected that petition on the ground that the matter was moot. Subsequent to our ruling, a final hearing was held on the municipalities’ challenge to the ordinance, and a permanent injunction was entered. During the litigation Sarasota County adopted resolutions postponing the date for a vote on the five amendments, originally setting April 5, 1977, and later setting November 8, 1977. After the final injunction was entered, the county brought a direct appeal here and moved to expedite the proceeding and to allow the expenditure of money in preparation for the November 8 referendum. Following emergency hearings on those motions, we declined to lift the permanent injunction, but we expedited the times for briefing and argument. At oral argument on-November 4, we were told that the County Commission had scheduled a hearing for November 8 on a resolution to defer the election until September 1978, if the ordinance is found to be consistent with the Constitution.

      .Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.

      . The Florida League of Cities, Inc. has joined with the four municipalities in contesting the county’s attempt to assume city functions without the approval of municipal residents.

      . “Section 3. Consolidation. — The government of a county and the government of one or more municipalities located therein may be consolidated into a single government which may exercise any and ail powers of the county and the several municipalities. The consolidation plan may be proposed only by special law, which shall become effective if approved by vote of the electors of the county, or of the county and municipalities affected, as may be provided in the plan. . . ”

      . “Section 4. Transfer of powers. — By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.”

      .“(f) NON-CHARTER GOVERNMENT. Counties not operating under county charters shall have such power of self-government as is provided by general or special law. The board of county commissioners of a county not operating under a charter may enact, in a manner prescribed by general law, county ordinances not inconsistent with general or special law, but an ordinance in conflict with a municipal ordinance shall not be effective within the municipality to the extent of such conflict.
      (g) CHARTER GOVERNMENT. Counties operating under county charters shall have all powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general law, or with special law approved by vote of the electors. The governing body of a county operating under a charter may enact county ordinances not inconsistent with general law. The charter shall provide which shall prevail in the event of conflict between county and municipal ordinances.”

      . See, for example, Beard v. City and County of San Francisco, 79 Cal.App.2d 753, 180 P.2d 744 (Dist.Ct.App.1947). Cf. City of Jacksonville Beach v. Albury, 291 So.2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), aff'd, 295 So.2d 297 (Fla.1974). Sarasota County argues in the alternative that were these transfers to be considered a consolidation under Art. VIII, § 3, then the ordinance would nonetheless comply with the “special law” requirement because it was adopted by a county which has a charter form of government. Although there is some logic in the suggestion that an ordinance of a charter county now provides the vehicle by which to adopt measures which before the 1968 Constitution required a special law, it is clear from the language of the Constitution that the term “special law” means an enactment of the Florida Legislature. Davis v. Gronemeyer, 251 So.2d 1 (Fla.1971).

      . By way of comparison, see Ch. 20, Fla.Stat., by which the 1969 Legislature consolidated the functions of over 100 departments, agencies and commissions into not more than 25 departments by simple transfer and assignment language. See Art. 4, § 6, Fla.Const.

      . Cf. Weber v. Smathers, 338 So.2d 819 (Fla.1976) (proposed constitutional amendment upheld against an attempt to enjoin its placement on the ballot).

      . This section grants the board of county commissioners the power to:
      “Adopt pursuant to the provisions of the charter, such ordinances of county-wide force and effect as are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. It is the specific legislative intent to recognize that a county charter may properly determine that certain governmental areas are more conducive to uniform county-wide enforcement and may provide the county government powers in relation to those areas as recognized and as may be amended from time to time by the people of that county[.]”

      . See, for example, Art. VII, §§ 9 and 10, and Art. VIII, § 1, Fla.Const.

      . Compare Art. VIII, §§ 1(f) and 1(g), Fla. Const.

      . Procedures for the approval of a transfer are either a vote of the electors of both the trans-feror and transferee, or “as otherwise provided by law”. The latter phrase does not describe an alternate method for initiating a transfer; it addresses only the means for approval. The Florida League of Cities notes that a proposed amendment to Art. VIII, § 4 — not adopted by the 1966 Constitution Revision Commission— would have added the words “unless otherwise provided by charter” at the end of the paragraph. This, the League indicates, conclusively shows that the Commission rejected the transfer of municipal powers simply by county resolution. Whatever the-effect of this action by the 1966 Commission, it does not involve the initiating requirements in Art. VIII, § 4.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Fritz STEIN, Jr., John Rybovich, Jr. and Benjamin H. Oehlert, Jr., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF PALM BEACH, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and State of Florida, Appellees.
    No. 52653.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Feb. 2, 1978.
    Rehearing Denied April 5, 1978.

      Chester Bedell and John A. DeVault, III, of Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar & Zehmer, Jacksonville, for appellants.
    R. William Rutter, Jr., County Atty., West Palm Beach, David Bludworth, State’s Atty., and Erin L. Fernandez, Asst. State’s Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See County of Palm Beach v. State, 342 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977).

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.