J. A. TOMLINSON, AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE TOWN OF MACCLENNY,
v.
STATE, EX REL. W. G. GILBERT
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 reversed a lower court's decision that had released a man convicted under a town ordinance requiring a permit to operate a motor vehicle. The court found the town was empowered by its charter to enact such an ordinance.
Yes, the Town of Macclenny was empowered by its charter to enact the ordinance in question.
“The only question presented is whether or not the town was empowered to enact the ordinance assaulted.”
This quote states the central legal issue before the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Macclenny enacted an ordinance requiring a permit to operate a motor vehicle on its streets. W. C. Gilbert was convicted of violating this…
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.
The Town of Macclenny passed an ordinance requiring all persons who live or conduct business therein to secure a permit from the town to operate any motor vehicle on' its streets. W. C. Gilbert was arrested for violating the provisions of said ordinance and on trial before the town magistrate was convicted and given an appropriate sentence. He was on' writ of habeas corpus released by the circuit court and the town appeals.
The only question presented is whether or not the town was empowered to enact the ordinance assaulted.
The charter of the Town of Macclenny is Chapter 19953, Acts .of 1939, and it contains at least three provisions that could be considered as authorizing such an ordinance, Subsection 14 of Section 1, Subsections 6 and 42 of Section 1, Article II, and Subsections 1 and 13 of Section 1, Article II. In addition to these provision's, the ordinance was validated by Chapter 19953, it having been enacted prior to the passage of the charter.
The judgment below is therefore reversed.
Reversed.
Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.