SRAEL & JABALY, INC.,
v.
J. M. LEE, AS COMPTROLLER, ET AL.
SRAEL & JABALY, INC.,
J. M. LEE, AS COMPTROLLER, ET AL.
117 Fla. 747
Florida Supreme Court (1934)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 158 So. 430
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
This is a companion case to that of Greenleaf & Crosby Co., Inc., et al., v. Coleman, as Sheriff, et al., opinion filed this day.
■ The appeal is from an order granting a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint.
■ The bill of complaint in this case is not framed as was the bill in the companion case. The allegations are sufficient, however, to withstand the motion to strike under authority of our opinion in the companion case and, on authority of that opinion and judgment, the order appealed from herein should be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded.
• Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. State, 487 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…offense. We conclude that it did. Our concern is with what the statute actually says, what that means, and whether Allen’s situation falls within it. We may not read into the statute what is not there. See, e.g., Rogers v. Cunningham, 117 Fla. 760, 158 So. 430 (1934) (criminal statute should be strictly construed; accused cannot be convicted unless he is plainly and unmistakably within the statute; statutes prescribing punishment should not be extended further than their terms reasonably justify). Sectio…
-
S.C. v. State, 224 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…(‘‘[T]his interpretation gives effect to the plain meaning of the statute as written at the time that Leftwich committed his crimes and is consistent with legislative intent at the time the statute was enacted.”); Rogers v. Cunningham, 117 Fla. 760, 158 So. 430, 432 (1934) ("It is not only useless, but not a function of the court, to supply words or omit them from the statute which destroy the generally understood plain meaning of its terms in order to make the statute fit a situation not in the legislativ…
-
Almanza v. State, 711 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…manner most favorable to the accused. See Perkins v. State, 576 So. 2d 1310, 1312 (Fla.1991); Arthur v. State, 391 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). As the supreme court observed in Rogers v. Cunningham, 117 Fla. 760, 158 So. 430, 432 (1934), if doubt exists as to the construction of a statute “prescribing punishment and penalties ... it is the duty of the court to resolve such doubt in favor of the citizens and against the state.” This rule of construction is applicable to…