ANNIE STEPHENS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
A. J. ANDERSON, AS CAPTAIN OF POLICE DEPARTMENT OF PENSACOLA, DEFENDANT IN ERRIR
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.
Annie Stephens sought habeas corpus for her 14-year-old daughter Tessie, who was detained by Pensacola's police captain for violating a city loitering ordinance. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's refusal to discharge Tessie, holding that without the ordinance in the record, the court could not determine whether it was constitutional.
The judgment was affirmed because the ordinance itself was not included in the record before the court, preventing the court from determining affirmatively whether the ordinance was constitutional or whether the lower court committed error.
“This court does not take judiical notice of city ordinances. It cannot therefore determine affirmatively that error has been committed by the Court of Record, and the judgment must be affirmed.”
Establishes the court's foundational reason for affirming—lack of the ordinance in the record prevents review of constitutional claims.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTessie Stephens, age 14, was arrested on February 9, 1918, and brought before the Recorder of Pensacola's Police Court on a charge of violating Sectio…
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 Judicial Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, J.
Annie Stephens, mother of Tessie Stephens, applied to the Judge of the Court of Record of Escambia County for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of her daughter, who was in custody of A. J. Anderson as Captain of the Police Department of Pensacola. The petition alleges that Tessie who is fourteen years of age was arrested Saturday night, February 9, 1918, by an officer of the city police and brought before the Recorder of the city upon the charge of violating Section 373 of the City Code, by “Loitering in violation of the ordinances of said city.” That she was found guilty as charged, and sentenced to pay a fine and costs and to remain in the custody of A. J. Anderson as Captain of the Police Department of the city until the fine and costs were paid. The writ was issued and Anderson made return that the girl was held in his custody by virtue of an order for her commitment made by the Recorder of the Police Court of the city in default of the payment of k fine imposed by judgment and sentence of the court, wherein she was’ tried and convicted upon adffidavit and warrant sentenced to pay a fine and in default of the payment thereof to be imprisoned in the city jail. Copies of the affidavit and warrant are attached to the return. The affidavit, omitting the venue, is as follows:
“Personally appeared before me Officer Williams, who, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith that Tessie Stephens on the ninth day of February, 1918, in the State and county aforesaid, and within the corporate limits of the City of Pensacola did violate the Ordinances of said City, to-wit: By violating Section 373 City Code, to-wit: Loitering in violation of the Ordinances of said City, in such case made and provided.”
The petitioner moved to quash the return and discharge Tessie upon the ground that the ordinance under Which the respondent seeks to detain Tessie in his custody is void as being in conflict with the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida. The motion to quash was overruled and the girl was remanded to the custody of the Captain of the Police Department of the city.
To this judgment a writ of error was allowed by the court and taken by Annie Stephens.
Neither a copy of the ordinance of the city, which the girl was convicted of violating, nor that referred to in the motion to quash as the one “under which the respondent seeks to detain” her is contained in the record.
This court does not take judiical notice of city ordinances. It cannot therefore determine affirmatively that error has been committed by the Court of Record, and the judgment must be affirmed. Ferlita v. Jones, Chief of Police, 50 Fla. 218, 39 South. Rep. 593; Freeman v. State, 19 Fla. 552; State ex rel. Donnelly v. Teasdale, 21 Fla. 652. The judgment is affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor,. Whitfield and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Bakeries Co. v. City of Haines City, 131 Fla. 790 (Fla. 1938)…s of the City of Haines City as stated in the majority opinion is fully answered by Sanders v. Howell, supra. Second: ' This Court has cited with approval the rule expressed in Sanders v. Howell, supra, in the following cases: Stephens v. Anderson, 75 Fla. 575, 79 So. 205; State, ex rel. Young, v. Duval County, 76 Fla. 180, 79 So. 692; Ex Parte Davidson, 76 Fla. 272, 79 So. 727; State, ex rel. Triay, v. Burr, 79 Fla. 290, 84 So. 61; City of St. Petersburg v. Pinellas Power Co., 87 Fla. 315, 100 So. 509; C…
-
State v. Holmes, 256 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…ith the Right to Free Movement: Stopping and Search of Vehicles, 1963, 51 Calif.L.Rev. 907, 921 et seq. .See, e. g., State ex rel. Donnelly v. Teasdale, 1885, 21 Fla. 652; Ferlita v. Jones, 1905, 50 Fla. 218, 39 So. 593; Stephens v. Anderson, 1918, 75 Fla. 575, 79 So. 205; City of Miami v. Thigpen, 1943, 151 Fla. 800, II So. 2d 300; Conrad v. Jackson, Fla.1959, 107 So. 2d 369; Wilkins v. Tebbetts, Fla.App.3d 1968, 216 So. 2d 477; Town of Medley v. Caplan, Fla.App.3d 1966, 191 So. 2d 449. The Florida Bar,…
-
Conrad v. Jackson, 107 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1958)…e. It simply does not appear in the record. The established rule is that courts cannot take judicial cognizance of municipal ordinances. We consequently cannot inquire into the provisions of an ordinance which is not before us. Stephens v. Anderson, 75 Fla. 575, 79 So. 205; State ex rel. Kay v. City of Miami, 158 Fla. 26, 27 So. 2d 413. An opinion of the Chancellor supporting the decree includes- several verbatim quotations from the zoning ordinance. Inasmuch as neither of the parties disputes the accuracy…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eli Freeman v. State, 19 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1882)
- State ex rel. J. C. Donnelly v. Teasdale, 21 Fla. 652 (Fla. 1885)
- Ferlita v. Jones, 50 Fla. 218 (Fla. 1905)