WILLIAM BURNS MYERS AND GEORGE SCHWARTZ, RESIDENTS AND TAXPAYERS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
BOARD OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
A taxpayer sued to enjoin the county from using public equipment, materials, and convicts to construct roads on private property within a subdivision.
The court considered the appeal of a denied temporary injunction, implying the case was ongoing regarding the use of public resources on private property.
The plaintiff, a taxpayer, alleged that the county approved a subdivision plat and then used public funds and resources to construct roads on the priv…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of Lower Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree holding Chapter 61-1007 and Chapter 61-2260, Laws of Florida 1961, to be constitutional.
Chapter 61-1007, which was passed as a general act, created a Board of Public Assistance in any county having a population of not less than 390,000 nor more than 450,-000 population. Only Hillsborough County now falls within this population bracket. The Board created by the act was given the functions formerly performed by the County Welfare Board, which was abolished, and also the responsibility for operating all publicly owned hospitals, nursing homes and related health facilities in the counties affected. Funds for the Board’s operation are to be provided by taxes levied by the Board of County Commissioners upon certification of needs by the Board upon basis of its budget as approved by the County Budget Commission.
Under the Act the Board is composed of five members, three being elected. The other two are ex officio members being respectively the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Mayor of the most populous city in the.county.
Appellants assault this Act, Chapter 61-1007, on four grounds, to-wit:
1. It is a local and not a general law, and therefore invalid because there was no publication of notice of intention to apply for passage thereof and no provision for referendum as required by Section 21, Article III, Florida Constitution.
2. The Act violates Section 20, Article III, Florida Constitution because it attempts to regulate the jurisdiction and duties of a class of officers.
3! The Act is an unlawful delegation of the legislative taxing power and *291it violates Section 6, Article IX, Florida Constitution.
4. The Act violates Section 27, Article III, Florida Constitution.
Chapter 61-2260, properly passed as a local act, provided that on September 30, 1961 all hospitals and a nursing school, then owned and operated by the City of Tampa, and a county home and hospital operated by the County Welfare Board would be transferred to and become the property of the Board created by Chapter 61-Í007, such Board to assume all existing indebtedness on the facilities transferred to it. There was no provision or requirement that the Board pay compensation for the properties transferred to it by the Act. Pursuant to this Act the Board did assume jurisdiction over and commence operation of the aforementioned facilities.
Appellants contend that this Act violates Section 12, Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because it fails to provide just compensation for the property taken from the City of Tampa.
In a decree dated March 4, 1963 the Chancellor held both acts to be valid and constitutional and appellants instituted this appeal.
In appellees’ brief it appears for the first time that the 1963 Legislature passed two acts which directly affect the subject matter of this litigation. Copies of these acts are included in Appellees’ Supplemental Appendix.
One of these acts, Chapter 63-922, is a population act which purports to amend Chapter 61-1007. The other is Senate Bill 1140, which we are told is a properly enacted local bill re-enacting the contents of both Chapter 61-2260 and Chapter 61-1007, as amended by Chapter 63-922, and validating all previous acts of the Board of Public Assistance of Hillsborough County.
In their reply brief appellants recognize the passage of the 1963 acts and as a result concede that the third point on appeal directed against Chapter 61-1007 is now moot, but they continue to press the remaining points.
If we were now to answer the questions directed here to the 1961 acts such would not settle this litigation or determine the validity of the 1963 acts. The 1963 acts, although recognized by the parties in their briefs and in argument before us, were not before the Chancellor and we cannot determine their validity here.
This case is strikingly similar to Northeast Polk County Hospital District v. Snively et al., Fla., 162 So.2d 657, 1964. In that case we decided we should not answer the points urged on appeal saying:
“Discussion of the points initially presented to us would be nothing more than mere brutum fulmen. The case in its present stage is not the one studied, discussed and decided by the chancellor and certainly we should be required to review only what he had the opportunity to consider. South Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, Fla., 107 So.2d 30.
“We must decline to engage in a discussion of the case as it was, or now is, and it is our order that the cause be remanded to the chancery court for reconsideration and re-determination of issues that may be formulated in the light of the legislation of 1963.”
In like manner this cause is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration and re-determination of issues that may be formulated in the light of the legislation of 1963.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1991)…ight seem to be an exercise of judicial futility to render an opinion on the constitutionality of a statute which no longer exists, see Board of Public Instruction v. Budget Commission, 167 So. 2d 305 (Fla.1964); Myers v. Board of Public Assistance, 163 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1964); Northeast Polk County Hospital District v. Snively, 162 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1964), the declaratory judgment action in this case, concerning the validity of chapter 90-201, is of sufficient importance to require it. The 1991 act is not proper…1 / 2
-
Tsavaras v. Lelekis, 246 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…slation enacted subsequent to the entry of the final decrees or judgments and filing of notices of appeal. Northeast Polk County Hospital District v. Snively, Fla.1964, 162 So. 2d 657; Myers v. Board of Pub. Assist. of Hillsborough County, Fla.1964, 163 So. 2d 289; ABC Liquors, Inc. v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 256; General Capital Corporation v. Tel Service Co., Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 1. In Tel Service Co. v. General Capital Corporation, Fla.1969, 227 So. 2d 667, the Supreme Court upheld this Court…
-
The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Orange Cnty. v. The Budget Comm'n OF Orange Cnty., 167 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1964)…n other cases and have disposed of them by remanding the whole matter to the chancellor. Northeast Polk County Hospital District v. Snively, Fla., 162 So. 2d 657; Myers et al. v. Board of Public Assistance of Hillsborough County, Fla., et al., Fla., 163 So. 2d 289. As we have done in the cases, cited, this cause is remanded to the trial, court for reconsideration and redetermination of the issues that may be formulated’, in the light of the legislation of 1963. In, the reconsideration process the chancellor i…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ne. Polk Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Snively, 162 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1964)
- S. Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, 107 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1958)