THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FORT PIERCE INLET DISTRICT, APPELLEE
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 decree validating bonds for the Fort Pierce Inlet District, rejecting the argument that the district's creation statute was unconstitutional due to unlimited tax levy authorization.
No, the statute creating the district is not unconstitutional in a way that invalidates the bond validation. The subsequent act authorizing the bonds limits the tax levy specifically to the payment of principal and interest for those bonds, making the prior constitutional concerns inapplicable.
“It is contended that the validating decree should be reversed because Chapter 9980, Acts of 1923, which created the Fort Pierce Inlet District, authorizes a tax levy without definite limitations and is unconstitutional under the principles stated in the ease of Stuart v. Daytona and New Smyrna Inlet District, decided at this term of this Court.”
This quote outlines the appellant's primary argument for reversing the bond validation decree.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida appealed a decree validating $650,000.00 in bonds for the Fort Pierce Inlet District. The State contended that the statute creati…
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 Bond Validation Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.-
This appeal is from a decree validating an issue of $650,000.00 of bonds of the Fort Pierce Inlet District, pursuant to Chapter 12031, Acts of 1927.
It is contended that the validating decree should be reversed because Chapter 9980, Acts of 1923, which created the Fort Pierce Inlet District, authorizes a tax levy without definite limitations and is unconstitutional under the principles stated in the ease of Stuart v. Daytona and New Smyrna Inlet District, decided at this term of this Court.
Even if it should in appropriate proceedings be adjudged that Chapter 9980, supra, unlawfully attempts to delegate the legislative power to tax, that may not affect the existence of the district as created by the statute, and as the authority to levy taxes conferred by Chapter 12031 is limited to the payment of the principal and interest of the $650,000.00 of bonds authorized by the latter Act, the principles announced in the case of Stuart v. Daytona and New Smyrna Inlet District are not applicable here.
The decree of the chancellor should be affirmed, and it is so ordered..
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Special Tax Sch. Dist. No. 5 of Dade Cnty., 107 Fla. 93 (Fla. 1932)…ollars of bonds carried with it authority to levy a tax sufficient to provide for the interest and for a sinking fund for such one million of bonds. The opinion of MR. JUSTICE BUFORD in that case cites the ease of State v. Ft. Pierce Inlet District, 94 Fla. 1157, 115 So. 547. If the granting by the legislature of the power to issue bonds in a certain amount carried with it the power to levy sufficient taxes for their payment, certainly when the constitution grants the power to issue refunding [*109] bonds,…
-
State v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Indian River Cnty., 103 Fla. 946 (Fla. 1931)…erative, do not defeat the continued existence and functioning of the district in view of the 1929 amendment which recognizes and continues the district without reference to the eliminated bonding provision. See State vs. Fort Pierce Inlet District, 94 Fla. 1157, 115 Sou. Rep. 547. This does not over-look what we said in Jinkins vs. Entzminger, 102 [*951] Fla. 167, 135 Sou. Rep. 785, to the effect that where a special taxing district could only accomplish its purpose by the issuance of bonds, the district f…
-
State v. Bass, 96 Fla. 478 (Fla. 1928)…ment of the bonds referred to in Chap. 11401 and in Chap. 12885, Laws of Florida, and, therefore, the opinion in the case of Stewart v. Daytona and New Smyrna Inlet District, supra, is not applicable. See State ex rel, v. Fort Pierce Inlet District, 94 Fla. 1157; 115 So. R. 547; Hipson v. Taylor, filed June 27, 1928. If the authority to levy the tax here sought to be required was to be found only in Chap. 11127, supra, it would be necessary for us to hold that the levy finds no support in valid legislation…1 / 2