THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SCENIC HILLS UTILITY COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 court held that the statute in question is constitutional and does not violate the Florida Constitution.
The appellant city contended that a state statute was unconstitutional. The chancellor below directly passed on the validity of the statute, holding i…
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 Special Or Local Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
In his final decree the able chancellor below directly passed on the validity of a state statute1 in disposing of appellant City’s contention that Chapter 57 — 1313, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1957, was unconstitutional because it violated the provisions of Section 20 of Article III of the Florida Constitution.2 He held:
“2. That Chapter 57-1313, Laws of Florida, is constitutional and not in violation of Section 20, Article III, of the Constitution of Florida, in that it is the opinion of the Court that the main purpose of the said Act is valid, and that the impact of such act upon the duties of the County Commissioners of Escambia County, Florida, is only incidental to such main purpose.”
We agree. State v. City of Tampa, 72 So.2d 371 (Fla.1954); McMullen v. Pinellas County, 90 Fla. 398, 106 So. 73; Whitney v. Hillsborough County, 99 Fla. 628, 127 So. 486; State ex rel. Glover v. Holbrook, 129 Fla. 241, 176 So. 99; Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So.2d 799; Pinellas County v. Laumer, 94 So.2d 837 (Fla.1957).
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, THORNAL, CALDWELL, ERVIN and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion of affirmance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Palm Beach Cnty. v. Millard F. Hibbard, 292 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974)…of officers except municipal officers.” (emphasis supplied) State v. Holbrook, supra, 176 So. at 102. See also: Coon v. Board of Public Instruction of Okaloosa County, 203 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1967); City of Pensacola v. Scenic Hills Utility Co., Inc., 166 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1964); State v. City of Tampa, 72 So. 2d 371 (Fla.1954); Hanson v. State, 56 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1952); State et al. v. Florida State Imp. Commission, 48 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1950). Arguing the validity of the questioned act, appellant relies on State…
Authorities Cited
- Posey v. Wakulla Cnty., 148 Fla. 115 (Fla. 1941)
- Whitney v. Hillsborough Cnty., 99 Fla. 628 (Fla. 1930)
- McMullen v. Cnty. of Pinellas, 90 Fla. 398 (Fla. 1925)
- Smith v. Dwyer, 127 So. 486 (La. Ct. App. 1930)
- State v. Holbrook, 129 Fla. 241 (Fla. 1937)
- Luke v. Phillips, 148 Fla. 160 (Fla. 1941)
- State v. City of Tampa, 72 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1954)
- Pinellas Cnty. v. Laumer, 94 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1957)