A. A. BECK AND JOE GRIFFIN, ET AL.,
v.
GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a lower court decree striking down 1947 legislative acts that attempted to reclassify fresh waters as salt waters and impose taxes, thereby removing the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's jurisdiction. The court held that the 1942 constitutional amendment vesting exclusive regulatory power over fresh water fish in the Commission divested the Legislature of power to regulate fresh water fish, regardless of how the Legislature classified the waters.
The Legislature lacks the power to oust the constitutional Commission from control over fresh water fish by reclassifying the waters as salt. The 1942 constitutional amendment vesting exclusive regulatory power in the Commission divested the Legislature of power to regulate fresh water fish, and the constitutional provision requiring all inconsistent laws to cease renders the 1947 statutes void.
“The constitutional provision creating a Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and vesting in it exclusive power to regulate game and fresh water fish industry of State divested Legislature of power to regulate or control the taking of fresh water fish in the state.”
Establishes the core holding that the constitutional amendment divested the Legislature of regulatory power over fresh water fish
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, created by constitutional amendment in 1942, adopted rules in 1944 prohibiting commercial fishing in Lake Ok…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
In this case the 'Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission filed a bill in equity against A. A. Beck and Joe Griffin, et al., seeking to declare certain acts of the Legislature unconstitutional. The State Board of Conservation was allowed to intervene. A final decree was entered for the plaintiff on the pleadings. The appeal raises the question of whether the legislature has the power to enact laws inconsistent with rules of the plaintiff Commission affecting the waters of Lake Okeechobee and certain portions of the St. Johns River.
The plaintiff Commission came into existence by virtue of Article IV, Section 30, being an amendment added in 1942. Heretofore we have commented upon the history, purpose and wide scope of its power. Sylvester v. Tindall, 154 Fla. 663, 18 So. (2nd) 892. In 1944 the Commission adopted rules designed to prevent commercial fishing insofar as fresh water fish were concerned and particularly in Lake Okeechobee and the St. Johns River. In 1947 the Legislature enacted several statutes. House Bill No. 922, in substance, declared certain waters in the St. Johns River in Putnam County to be in fact salt water, thereby removing the area from the jurisdiction of the plaintiff Commission and placing it under the State Board of Conservation. A similar act was also passed in reference to Lake Okeechobee. See House Bill No. 1166. House Bill No. 1190 was also passed which levied an excise tax upon crappie and bream taken from said waters, which tax was to be paid to the State Board of Conservation.
The question is squarely presented — whether the Legislature can oust the constitutional Commission from control over fresh water fish in Lake Okeechobee and the St. Johns River by making a legislative finding that said waters are salt.
In Price v. City of St. Petersburg, 158 Fla. 705, 29 So. (2nd) 753, (3rd headnote) we held:
“The constitutional provision creating a Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and vesting in it exclusive power to regulate game and fresh water fish industry of State divested Legislature of power to regulate or control the taking of fresh water fish in the state. F.S.A. Const. Art. 4, S 30.”
*3The case of State v. Sullivan, ...... Fla. ......, 30 So. (2nd) 919, settled the correctness of this decree beyond doubt.
We do not overlook the contention that the Legislature has from time immemorial classified the waters of the state either salt or fresh; that when this amendment was adopted certain of these waters were actually classed as salt waters. The Constitutional amendment expressly provides, however, that all existing laws inconsistent herewith shall no longer remain in force and effect.
The decree is affirmed.
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, BUFORD, SEBRING and BARNS, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, C. J., and CHAPMAN, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barrow v. Forace F. Holland, 125 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1960)…who are affected by it, as well- as to govern the agents of the Commission who are required to enforce it. Regulations of this Commission have the force and effect of law. Bronson v. State, supra; Beck v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1948, 160 Fla. 1, 33 So. 2d 594. It is a well-established rule of constitutional law that an enactment delegating administrative power to an agency of government should define the limits of the power by including in the enactment reasonable standards which enable th…
-
Whitehead v. Rogers, 223 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1969)…t when the Commission prescribes a reasonable rule for doing this it is not within the power of the legislature to change it. State ex rel. Griffin v. Sullivan, 158 Fla. 870, 30 So. 2d 919, Fla.1947; and Beck v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 160 Fla. 1, 33 So. 2d 594, Fla. 1948. The constitutional mandate in establishing the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, states, “The Legislature may enact any laws in aid of, but not inconsistent with, the provisions of this amendment, and all existing law…
-
City OF Miramar v. Bain, 429 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…e subject of this court’s decision in Nell v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local # 675, 427 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and does not stand because of the reasons recited therein. . See also Beck v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 160 Fla. 1, 33 So. 2d 594 (1948); and State ex rel. Griffin v. Sullivan, 158 Fla. 870, 30 So. 2d 919 (1947). . At trial and in the final judgment, the rules which preexisted chapter 39-6 were identified. Only the numbers have been changed, however, not the re…
Authorities Cited
- Sylvester v. Young Tindall, 154 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1944)
- State v. HON. Jimmy Sullivan, 158 Fla. 870 (Fla. 1947)
- Price v. City of ST. Petersburg, 158 Fla. 705 (Fla. 1947)