W. A. BISHPAM, JR.,
v.
NATHAN MAYO, COM'R. AGRI., ET AL.
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.
In this companion case, the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a complainant seeking to enjoin enforcement of agricultural production statutes could be bound by the outcome in parallel litigation. The court modified the dismissal to preserve the complainant's right to benefit from any final adjudication of constitutionality in the related Polk County suit.
The decree dismissing the bill was modified to be without prejudice, preserving the complainant's right to invoke the benefit of any final order or decree ultimately adjudicating in the Polk County suit the constitutionality of the application of the statutes to Florida grapefruit. As modified, the decree was affirmed.
“The decree dismissing the bill in this case should have been without prejudice to the right of complainant in the present suit to invoke the benefit of any final order or decree ultimately adjudicating.in the Polk County suit the constitutionality of the application of the statutes involved to grapefruit produced in the State of Florida.”
Establishes the modification to preserve the complainant's right to benefit from the companion case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant sought an injunction against the Commissioner of Agriculture and his assistants from enforcing provisions of Chapter 11844, Acts of 19…
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 Injunction Pendente Lite cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a companion case of that of Nathan Mayo, as Commissioner of Agriculture, et al., v. Florida Grapefruit Protective Association, a corporation not for profit, in which an order has this day been entered affirming without prejudice an injunction granted by the Circuit Court of Polk County restraining pendente lite the Commissioner of Agriculture and his assistants from enforcing, as against producers of grapefruit, the provisions of Chapter 11844, Acts of 1927, as amended by Chapter 14485, Acts of 1929, the final determination of the constitutionality of the Acts in controversy being not adjudicated because of the equal division of this Court on the proposition whether or not the legislative Acts cited' can be constitutionally applied to grapefruit produced in the State of Florida.
This case was brought after the Polk County case had been decided in the Circuit Court, and in this proceeding the complainant’s application for an injunction was denied *117and the bill of complaint was dismissed. From that decree this appeal was taken.
The decree dismissing the bill in this case should have been without prejudice to the right of complainant in the present suit to invoke the benefit of any final order or decree ultimately adjudicating.in the Polk County suit the constitutionality of the application of the statutes involved to grapefruit produced in the State of Florida. It is accordingly so modified by this Court, and as modified, is affirmed, because of the equal division of this Court referred to in the decision of the companion case this day disposed of as hereinbefore stated.
Modified and affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford; j. J., concur.