P. L. PIERCE, M. L. GILBERT AND LINTON TUCKER, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN THE RELATION OF THE TRUSTEES OF SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 32, OF PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 held that a 1925 special statute requiring the Board of Public Instruction to employ teachers recommended by trustees of special tax school districts violated the Florida Constitution's prohibition on special laws, reversing a mandamus judgment that compelled the county board to appoint a principal recommended by the district trustees.
The Act violates Section 20, Article III of the Florida Constitution and is therefore void. The judgment granting mandamus to compel the appointment is reversed.
“the Boards of Public Instruction of Counties in the State of Florida having a population of more than Eight Thousand Eight Hundred (8800) and less than Nine Thousand (9000) according to the Federal Census of the year 1920, shall employ as teachers in the schools of any Special Tax School District of said Counties, all or any parts of which District is within the limits of an incorporated town or city, the teachers recommended for such school by the trustees of such districts.”
The statutory language establishing the challenged requirement, showing it was a special law applicable only to Pasco County
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Trustees of Special Tax School District No. 32 of Pasco County recommended an individual as principal for Gulf High School at New Port Richey. The…
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 Separation Of Powers cases and more on FLexlaw
— The defendants in error being Trustees of Special Tax School District No. 32 of Pasco County, Florida, recommended to the Board of Public Instruction, composed of plaintiffs in error, the appointment of a certain individual as principal for Gulf High School at New Port Richey. The County Board of Public Instruction declined to appoint the person recommended by the Trustees. Thereupon, the Trustees applied for writ of mandamus to compel the County Board of Public Instruction to appoint the principal named by the Trustees, claiming that Authority under the provisions of Chapter 10249, Acts of the Legislature of 1925. Section 1 of that Act is as follows:
“That the Boards of Public Instruction of Counties in the State of Florida having a population of more than Eight Thousand Eight Hundred (8800) and less than Nine Thousand (9000) according to the Federal Census of the year 1920, shall employ as teachers in the schools of any Special Tax School District of said Counties, all or any parts of which District is within the limits of an incorporated town or city, the teachers recommended for such school by the trustees of such districts.”
The respondents demurred to the alternative writ. The demurrer was overruled and peremptory writ of mandamus was issued. To this judgment writ of error was taken.
The sole question for our consideration is, whether or not this Act violates Section 20, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Florida. It is clear from the language of the Act that it was intended to apply to Pasco *1034County only, as that county is the only county which under the Federal Census of 1920 falls within the classification.
On authority of the opinion and judgment and cases cited in the case of Knight vs. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, filed at this term of the Court, we hold the- Act to be in conflict with Section 20, Article III of the Constitution of Florida.
The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded with directions that an order be entered quashing the alternative writ and dismissing the suit. It is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur. '
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gustafson, 127 Fla. 741 (Fla. 1937)…nable basis for the classification by population as is contained in either of the Acts. See Thursby v. State, 103 Fla. 527, 137 Sou. 689; 100 Fla. 494, 129 Sou. 747; Knight v. Board of Public Instruction, 102 Fla. 922, 136 Sou. 631; Pierce v. State, 102 Fla. 1032, 136 Sou. 689; State v. O’Neal, 100 Fla. 1277, 131 Sou. 165. It follows that the two legislative Acts were local Acts, regulating the fees of county officers and as the provisions of' Section 21, Article III of the Constitution were in nowise compl…
-
Dade Cnty. v. Kerce, 137 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1938)…e III, of the State .constitution forbids the enactment of special or local laws “regulating the jurisdiction and duties of any class of officers, except municipal officers.” Knight v. Hillsborough County, 102 Fla. 922, 136 So. 631; Pierce v. State, 102 Fla. 1032, 136 So. 689. Chapter 17974, Acts of 1937, does not purport to regulate the jurisdiction and duties of any class of officers, as do the statutes held invalid in the cases las't above cited; and the quoted provision of the Constitution is not violat…
-
ORR v. Attorney General, 32 Fla. Supp. 133 (Leon Cty. Cir. Ct. 1969)…situated throughout the state.” State v. Gray, 133 Fla. 23, 182 So. 620; Shelton v. Reeder, Fla. 121 So. 2d 145. See also Thursby v. State, 103 Fla. 527, 137 So. 689; Knight v. Board of Public Instruction, 102 Fla. 922, 136 So. 631; Pierce v. State, 102 Fla. 1032, 136 So. 689; State, ex rel. Himes v. Culbreath, 128 Fla. 210, 174 So. 422. Chapter 67-2066 is a special act applying only to Sarasota County rather than a population act. The same prohibition applies to both and no attempt has been made to justify…