JAMES L. CUNNINGHAM AND HIS WIFE, HELEN M. CUNNINGHAM, PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA, A BODY CORPORATE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
This cause is before the court on petition for certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Cunningham v. State Plant Board of Florida, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 905. We have carefully examined the petition, as supplemented by supporting briefs and argument of counsel at the Bar of this court, and have concluded that the District Court of Appeal disposed of the matter with a decision which fails to collide with a prior decision of this court on the same point of law.
The petition for the writ of certiorari is, accordingly, denied.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1961)…eady existing, do not come within the legal conception of a retrospective law, or the general rule against retrospective operation of statutes. Cunning [*137] ham v. State Plant Board of Florida, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 90S, certiorari denied Fla., 115 So. 2d 701. This meets the possible argument the subject cause should be governed by the law applicable at the time of the second accident, that is, at the time controversy became possible, and not, retrospectively, by a subsequent enactment in effect when Bit…
-
Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Bonanno, 568 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1990)…statute was held to represent a constitutional exer [*28] cise of power which was binding upon parties whose trees had been destroyed prior to the enactment of the statute. Cunningham v. State Plant Board, 112 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 115 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1959). The relevance of these decisions will become more apparent as the several constitutional attacks upon chapter 89-91 are discussed. The plaintiffs argue that chapter 89-91 unconstitutionally deprives them of a jury trial. Article I, sect…
-
Clement K. Heberle v. P. R. O. Liquidating Co., 186 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…ghts already existing, do not come within the legal conception of a retrospective law, or the general rule gainst retrospective operation of statutes. Cunningham v. State Plant Board of Florida, Fla.App. 1959, 112 So. 2d 905, certiorari denied Fla., 115 So. 2d 701.” The statute in question being in the nature of a remedial or procedural act would fall within the exception to the general rule provided the statute is in furtherance of a remedy already existing. This leaves the crucial question of whether this…
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
- James L. Cunningham and his wife v. State Plant Bd. OF Fla., 112 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)