JOHN D. VANN, JR., AND EDMOND HAGAN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF 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 affirmed a lower court's decision denying a habeas corpus petition. The petitioners were convicted of violating a fishing law and sought release, arguing the law was unconstitutional due to improper notice. The court held that determining the sufficiency of legislative notice is a non-justiciable legislative function.
The determination of whether proper notice was published for a special law is exclusively a legislative function, not a judicial one. Therefore, the court cannot review the sufficiency of the notice.
“the determination vel non of the fact of publication was exclusively a legislative, not a judicial, function.”
Establishes the core legal principle that the court cannot review the sufficiency of legislative notice.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn D. Vann, Jr., and Edmond Hagan were convicted in a criminal court for violating a Florida law prohibiting fishing by seining. They sought release…
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.
[*161] Cockrell, J.
After conviction in the Criminal Court of Record for Volusia County of catching fish by seining in violation of Chapter 6312, Laws of 1911, Vann and Hagan sought a release through a writ of Habeas Corpus, and the case is before us upon writ of error allowed to the judgment refusing their discharge.
A lengthy argument is presented to us, upon the assumption that notice as required by the Constitution was not published, a condition precedent to the passage of local or special laws. The argument based on decisions from other States, overlooks, the decision of this court in Stockton v. Powell, 29 Fla. 1, 10 South. Rep. 688, uniformly adhered to by us, that the determination vel non of the fact of publication was exclusively a legislative, not a judicial, function. Rushton v. State, 58 Fla. 94. In this holding Ave are in accord with practically all the courts in the land. The legislative journals are silent as to the notice or its contents, and the cases cited from other courts are therefore inapplicable.
The other attacks upon the information are directed against Chapter 6222, Laws of 1911. These contentions are all answered by our opinion in the case of Stinson v. State, 63 Fla. 42, 58 South. Rep. 722.
Judgment affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leonard v. Chairman, 84 Fla. 402 (Fla. 1922)…this rule, whether the legislature observes this constitutional command is not a matter about -which the courts may concern themselves. Stockton v. Powell, 29 Fla. 1, 10 South. Rep. 688; Rushton v State, 58 Fla. 94, 50 South. Rep. 486; Vann v State, 65 Fla. 160, 61 South. Rep. 323. If its non-observance hafc, or should hereafter, become a matter of public concern it may be corrected by so amending the constitution as to require such notice to affirmatively appear upon the legislative journals. [*411] It is…
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Rivers Buford v. Fearnside, 87 Fla. 349 (Fla. 1924)…idence thereof was “established in the Legislature” before the bill was passed, and the Court are concluded by such judgment. Stockton v. Powell, 29 Fla. 1, text 3, 10 South. Rep. 688; Rushton v. State, 58 Fla. 94, 50 South. Rep. 486; Vann v. State, 65 Fla. 160, 61 South. Rep. 323. In Horton v. Kyle, 81 Fla. 274, 88 South. Rep. 757, the act was passed at a special session of the legislature, the calling of which by the Governor was not known in time to make the required publication of the notice with refe…
-
Jackson Lumber Co. v. Walton Cnty., 95 Fla. 632 (Fla. 1928)…before the bill was passed, and the courts are concluded by such judgment. State ex rel. Buford, v. Fearnside, 87 Fla. 349, 100 So. 256; Stockton v. Powell, 29 Fla. 1, text 52-59, 10 So. 688; Rushton v. State, 58 Fla. 94, 50 So. 486; Vann v. State, 65 Fla. 160, 61 So. 323. The case of Horton v. Kyle, 81 Fla. 274, 88 So. 757, is not applicable here, as the Act now under review was passed at a regular session of the Legislature. The remedy for the alleged abuse in respect of local laws lies with the people…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Telfair Stockton v. Powell, 29 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1892)
- Stinson v. State, 63 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1912)
- Orum Rushton v. State, 58 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1909)