STATE EX REL. BLISS
v.
BLITCH
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.
This case concerns a habeas corpus petition challenging the validity of a state law establishing a criminal court of record in Palm Beach County. The court found that the law was validly enacted, despite claims of insufficient notice, because the legislative journals provided evidence of proper publication.
No, the law establishing the Criminal Court of Record for Palm Beach County is operative. The legislative journals provided sufficient evidence that the required notice of the bill's substance and intent to apply for its passage was published in the locality affected, at least sixty days prior to the bill's introduction.
“Evidence that the notice required by Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution of the State of Florida has been published in the locality where the matter or thing to be affected is situated, which notice stated the substance of the contemplated law, and was published at least sixty days prior to the introduction into the legislature of the foregoing bill, and in the manner provided by law, was duly established in the House of Representatives before the foregoing entitled bill was passed.”
This quote from the legislative journals demonstrates compliance with the constitutional notice requirements for local laws.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA petitioner sought release from prison via habeas corpus, arguing that the law establishing the Criminal Court of Record for Palm Beach County was in…
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 Severability Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
In habeas corpus proceedings the release of the petitioner from prison under sentence of the Criminal *Page 810 Court of Record for Palm Beach County is sought on the ground that Chapter 11363, Acts Extraordinary Session 1925, which establishes the court, is inoperative because it is a local law and no notice of intention to apply for its passage was published as required by the Constitution. The provisions of the Constitution to be considered are Section 24, Article V, and Sections 20 and 21, Article III, before the amendment to Section 21, Article III, was adopted in 1928.
The title and Section 1 of Chapter 11363 is as follows:
"AN ACT to Establish a Criminal Court of Record in the County of Palm Beach.
"Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
"Section 1. There shall be and is hereby established a Criminal Court of Record in and for the County of Palm Beach."
The establishment of a court is not among the classes of laws enumerated in Section 20, Article III, Constitution, that under Section 21, "shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the State."
The title, enacting clause and Section 1 of Chapter 11363, establish a Criminal Court of Record for Palm Beach County. The first section of the Act is specifically authorized by Section 24, Article V, Constitution. See State ex rel. McQuaid v. Commissioners of Duval County, 23 Fla. 483, 3 So. R. 193. Section 1 is severable from, and is effective without, the remainder of the act.
The Journal of the House of Representatives at the Extraordinary Session of 1925, page 833, after recording the vote on the passage of the bill to establish a Criminal Court of Record in the county of Palm Beach, contains the following, which in this case imports verity: *Page 811
"Evidence that the notice required by Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution of the State of Florida has been published in the locality where the matter or thing to be affected is situated, which notice stated the substance of the contemplated law, and was published at least sixty days prior to the introduction into the legislature of the foregoing bill, and in the manner provided by law, was duly established in the House of Representatives before the foregoing entitled bill was passed."
If the provisions of Section 21, Art. III, Constitution, requiring the publication of notice of proposed special or local laws, are applicable, the legislature journals show a compliance with the organic requirements.
In Williams v. Dormany, 99 Fla. 496, 126 So. R. 117, it was alleged that no notice was given of a bill passed at an extraordinary session of the legislature and it was not shown by the journals of the legislature or otherwise that the notice required by the Constitution was duly published and established in the legislature. Nor was any such showing made in Horton v. Kyle, 81 Fla. 274, 88 So. R. 757.
Petitioner remanded.
TERRELL, C. J., and WHITFIELD, ELLIS, STRUM, BROWN and BUFORD, J. J., concur. *Page 812
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Cnty. of Bay, 112 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1933)…ture had observed the requirement. Such an entry is a mere declaration that the Legislature has observed the requirements of the Constitu-r tion, which under the Constitution it is presumed to observe. In the case of State, ex rel. Bliss v. Blitch, 100 Fla. 809, 130 South. Rep. 444, the Court stated that the Act under consideration in that case was not in the class of laws enumerated in Section 20, Art. Ill, prohibiting the passage of special or local laws, which class under Section 21 “shall [*729] be gen…1 / 3
-
Fay W. Cates & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Heffernan, 154 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1944)…ction 11, Article V. The establishment of a court is not among the classes of laws enumerated in Section 20, Article III of the Constitution,' that under Section 21, “shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the State.” State v. Blitch, 100 Fla. 809, 130 So. 444. This Court has recognized the power of the Legislature to ordain and establish civil courts of record in several cases, among them State v. Barrs, 105 Fla. 27, 140 So. 908. And in the case of Sinclair Refining Company v. Hunter, 139 F…
-
State v. Rosenthal, 109 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1933)…d passage could not have occurred, although the Legislative Record shows to the contrary. This Act was passed at the same Extra Session at which Chapter 11363 was passed. The latter Act was held valid by this Court in State ex rel. Blitch v. Blitch, 100 Fla. 809, 130 Sou. 444. The same objections and contentions were presented as to the validity of that Act, which are presented here. The record of'the passage of the Act now under consideration conforms to the record of the passage of Chapter 11363, supra. O…
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
- Williams v. Dormany, 99 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1930)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. v. The Cnty. Comm'rs of Duval Cnty., 23 Fla. 483 (Fla. 1887)
- Horton v. Kyle, 81 Fla. 274 (Fla. 1921)