A. L. AVERY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CITY OF PENSACOLA ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
This case concerns the constitutionality of a Florida law, chapter 8477, Laws. The court affirmed the denial of an injunction and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the bill, finding the principal question was covered by a prior ruling.
The court held that the principal question regarding the constitutionality of chapter 8477, Laws, was resolved by a prior decision. The court affirmed the denial of the injunction.
“The decision in the case of the City of Jacksonville vs. Arthur D. Basnett et al. (supra, p. 525, and 19 Fla., 664,) cover the principal question raised in this case.”
Establishes that the core issue was previously decided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants challenged the constitutionality of chapter 8477, Laws. The bill of complaint also mentioned rights of parties who purchased property after…
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.
Mr. Justice Westcott
delivered the opinion of the court.
The decision in the case of the City of Jacksonville vs. Arthur D. Basnett et al. (supra, p. 525, and 19 Fla., 664,) cover the principal question raised in this case. The question is the constitutionality of chapter 8477, Laws.
There was something said in this case about rights of parties who had purchased property since the assessment was made. "We do not understand the bill to make that case. The decree, therefore, in this case must be, that the order of the Chancellor denying the injunction is affirmed, and that the case he remanded with directions to dismiss the bill. Whether the equitable remedy here sought would lie in the event there was any right, we deem it unnecessary to decide, as the judgmen there is the same in either event.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bloxham v. Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co., 35 Fla. 625 (Fla. 1895)
-
City of Coral Gables v. State, 128 Fla. 874 (Fla. 1937)…ate of forty cents for each dollar of the old bonds, coupons and judgments, with accrued interest. The situation presented was different and the law enunciated not applicable here, but it is interesting to note that this Court in Sullivan v. Walton, 20 Fla. 551, 557, said: "Looking at the whole matter, we doubt whether one citizen taxpayer alone * * * can be heard to assail and set aside a compromise of a bonded indebtedness of the city by which the debt is to be reduced hundreds of thousands of dollars.”…
Authorities Cited
- Basnett v. The City of Jacksonville, 19 Fla. 664 (Fla. 1883)