CITY OF WINTER PARK
v.
STATE, EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND ON BEHALF OF GEORGE E. HOWARD, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of ouster invalidating two legislative acts that expanded the boundaries of the City of Winter Park to include agricultural and undeveloped lands that received no municipal benefits. The court held that the Legislature exceeded its constitutional authority in including such territory within the municipality solely for purposes of expanding the tax base.
The Legislature exceeded its constitutional power in including the described territory within the City of Winter Park. The legislative acts that sought to annex such territory were unconstitutional and void as they violated the constitutional rights of the landowners affected.
“The sole question presented by the pleadings is whether or not the inclusion of the territory as to which ouster is sought was within the province of the Legislature to be included in the municipality.”
Identifies the central legal issue: whether the Legislature had constitutional authority to annex the disputed territory.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Attorney General and certain landowners (co-relators) challenged two legislative acts (Chapter 11325 and Chapter 11802) that expanded Winter Park'…
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 Municipal Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error in this case brings for review judgment of ouster in quo warranto proceedings instituted to test the validity of Chapter 11325, Laws of Fla. 1295, and Chapter 11802, Laws of Fla., Extraordinary Session of 1925. ■
The action was brought by the Attorney General and certain co-relators, landowners within the area included in the Charter Acts above referred to which was not included in former legislative Acts fixing the boundaries of the Town of Winter Park.
The contention being that the lands of the co-relators specially described in the information constituted a large part of the territory included within the boundaries by such latter legislative Acts and that such lands were either wild, unimproved and unfit for urban use or that they were lands devoted to the culture of orange groves and farm products and in either case could not receive and had not received any municipal benefits by reason of being included within the territorial boundaries of the municipality and that such lands were so included for the sole purpose of affording the municipality additional property upon which to levy and collect taxes. The sole question presented by the pleadings is whether or not the inclusion of the territory as to which *345ouster is sought was within the province of the Legislature to be included in the municipality.
In the judgment of ouster the lower court determined and adjudged that insofar as the legislative Acts above referred to sought to include the described territory within the municipality such Acts were unconstitutional because they exceeded the power of the Legislature and violated the constitutional rights of the relators and parties in similar circumstances and like situation and were, therefore, of no force and effect.
We think that no useful purpose could be served by repeating what has been heretofore held as the applicable law in such cases by this Court. The judgment should be affirmed on authority of State, ex rel., v. City of Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641, 149 Sou. 409, and State, ex rel. City of Largo, 110 Fla. 21, 149 Sou. 420.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., concurs in the opinion’ and judgment.
Davis, J., not participating.
(dissenting). — By waiting for over eight years and acquiescing in the extension Act for that period, I think the co-relators are estopped, and I do not see that the Attorney General, acting for the State, has any right to complain. The interests of the State are not adversely affected, so far as I can see. State v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563, 109 So. 473.
Brown, J.
(dissenting). — By waiting for over eight years and acquiescing in the extension Act for that period, I think the co-relators are estopped, and I do not see that the Attorney General, acting for the State, has any right to complain. The interests of the State are not adversely affected, so far as I can see. State v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563, 109 So. 473.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Town of Boynton Beach, 129 Fla. 528 (Fla. 1937)…Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641, 149 So. 409; State, ex rel. Davis, v. City of Largo, 110 Fla. 21, 149 So. 420; State, ex rel. Davis, v. City of Pompano, 113 Fla. 246, 151 So. [*534] 485; City of Winter Park v. State, ex rel. Attorney General, 119 Fla. 343, 161 So. 386. A careful reading of these cases discloses that in those instances when the Legislature has palpably abused its prerogative by incorporating lands in a municipality totally devoid of the elements' essential thereto, the Act is void ab initio as to…
-
City of S. Miami v. State ex rel. Cary D. Landis, 140 Fla. 740 (Fla. 1939)…v. City of Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641, 149 So. 409; State ex rel. Davis v. City of Largo, 110 Fla. 21, 149 So. 420; State ex rel. Davis v. City of Pompano, 113 Fla. 246, 151 So. 485; City of Winter Park v. State ex rel. Attorney General, 119 Fla. 343, 161 So. 386.” It is next contended that the evidence offered in the lower court on the part of the co-relators is insufficient in law to sustain the judgment appealed from. We have read the evidence appearing in the record offered by the respective [*747] part…
-
City of Auburndale v. State, 135 Fla. 172 (Fla. 1938)…Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641, 149 So. 409; State, ex rel. Davis, v. City of Largo, 110 Fla. 21, 149 So. 420; State, ex rel. Davis, v. City of Pompano, 113 Fla. 246, 151 So. 485; City of [*175] Winter Park v. State, ex rel. Attorney General, 119 Fla. 343, 161 So. 386. “A careful reading of these cases discloses that in those instances when the Legislature has palpably abused its prerogative by incorporating lands in a municipality totally devoid of the elements essential thereto, the Act is void ab initio as' t…
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
- State v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1926)
- State v. The City of Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. The City of Largo, 110 Fla. 21 (Fla. 1933)