BEVERLY GRIZZARD, A. HUGH BOURLAY, JR., KATHERINE BUTLER, J. K. WILLMAN
v.
THE CITY OF LEESBURG, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 considered whether the City of Leesburg could retroactively impose municipal taxes on territory it had excluded from its boundaries in 1929. The court held that the 1929 statute's purpose was to relieve the excluded territory from municipal taxation, and therefore the city's attempt to collect taxes for that and prior years was improper.
The court held that the motion to strike portions of the city's answer should have been granted. The 1929 Act eliminating the territory from the city showed on its face an intent to relieve the excluded territory of municipal taxes, and the city therefore could not retroactively impose such taxes.
“The Act of 1929 eliminating the territory in question from the City shows on its face an intent to relieve it of municipal taxes.”
Establishes that the statutory language itself demonstrated legislative intent to exempt the excluded territory from taxation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1929, Chapter 14613 of the Florida Statutes reduced the territorial limits of the City of Leesburg by excluding certain territory. In 1943, the Cit…
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.
Chapter 14613, Acts of 1929, reduced the territorial limits of the City of Leesburg. In 1943 the City undertook to impose municipal taxes on the territory eliminated for that year and for the three preceding years. Petitioners brought this suit to enjoin the collection of said taxes on the theory that no municipal improvements had been made on the excluded territory and that they were not susceptible to municipal improvement. An amended bill was filed to which the City *193tendered an answer. The Court denied a motion to strike certain portions of Paragraph 2 of the answer. This is an appeal by certiorari under rule 34 of the rules of this Court from the order denying the motion to strike.
We think the motion to strike should have been granted. The Act of 1929 eliminating the territory in question from the City shows on its face an intent to relieve it of municipal taxes. The bill of complaint alleges that the lands eliminated were not benefited and were, in fact, so located that they could not be benefited by the tax. It is also shown that they are agricultural lands, and the answer does not deny any. of these allegations. The judgment appealed from is reversed on authority of City of Winter Haven v. Klemm & Son, 141 Fla. 75, 192 So. 646; Smith v. City of Winter Haven, 154 Fla. 439, 18 So. (2) 4; and Richmond v. Town of Largo, 155 Fla. 226, 19 So. (2) 791.
' Writ of certiorari is granted and the order of the Court denying a motion to strike a portion of respondent’s answer to paragraph two of the bill of complaint is quashed.
It is so ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
BUFORD, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richmond v. Town OF Largo, 155 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1944)
- The City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son, 141 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1939)
- Smith v. City OF Winter Haven, 154 Fla. 439 (Fla. 1944)