JACOB CROISSANT
v.
RAYMOND HARRIS, ET AL., AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND DUVAL COUNTY
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 lower court's decision refusing to declare a legislative act unconstitutional, citing reasons identical to a related case decided the same day. The court recognized the act as valid under specific conditions related to the court's composition.
Yes, the lower court's refusal to declare Chapter 16058, Acts of 1933, unconstitutional is affirmed. The act is to be recognized and enforced as valid under the stated conditions.
“The questions presented for consideration in this case are the same that have been argued before this Court in the case of State, ex rel. Landis, Attorney General, v. Raymond Harris and John S. Bond in which final judgment has this day been entered in favor of the respondents, for the reasons stated in the opinion accompanying the final judgment.”
Establishes that the current case's issues are identical to a prior, decided case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA taxpayer filed a suit in equity seeking to enjoin county officers from recognizing Chapter 16058, Acts of 1933, as a valid law. The complainant argu…
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 Constitutional Questions cases and more on FLexlaw
The questions presented for consideration in this case are the same that have been argued before this Court in the case of State, ex rel. Landis, Attorney General, v. Raymond Harris and John S. Bond in which final judgment has this day been entered in favor of the respondents, for the reasons stated in the opinion accompanying the final judgment.
For like reasons to those stated in the above mentioned opinion so filed in the case of State, ex rel. Landis, Attorney General, v. Harris and Bond, supra, and with like limitations and modifications, the decree appealed from in this case, by which the Circuit Court of Duval County refused to adjudicate Chapter 16058, Acts 1933, to be unconstitutional or unenforceable for the causes assigned in complainant’s bill of complaint in challenge thereof by a taxpayer’s suit in equity brought to enjoin the recognition by affected officers of the force and effect of said Chapter 16058, as a valid Act, is hereby affirmed without prejudice to a reconsideration of the constitutional questions involved should there be a change in the personnel of this Court — said Chapter 16058, Acts 1933, to be recognized and enforced as a valid Act of the Legislature so long as no opinion and judgment holding it unconstitutional has been concurred in by a majority of the members of the Supreme Court sitting in banc in the hearing of the cause.
Affirmed on condition stated in opinion.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hysler v. State, 132 Fla. 209 (Fla. 1938)…eclaration of Rights of the State Constitution, relating to the right of trial by jury. Errors in numbering bills in process of enactment are not fatal to the bills. See Volusia County v. State, 98 Fla. 1166, 123 So. 375.” See: Croissant v. Harris, 121 Fla. 141, 163 Sou. Rep. 470. Each of these assignments is controlled by State, ex rel. Landis, v. Harris, supra. Grounds of the motion for a new trial from 23 to 32, inclusive, are each based on exceptions to instructions given on the law of the case by the…
-
Carter v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 138 Fla. 220 (Fla. 1939)…ast Ry. Co. v. Davis, 96 Fla. 171, 117 So. 842; Stover v. Stovall, 103 Fla. 284, 137 So. 249; Biscayne Trust Co. v. Pennsylvania Sugar Co., 103 Fla. 155, 137 So. 147; Quigg v. Helm, 119 Fla. 693, 161 So. 55; Maas Bros. v. Fuller, 121 Fla. 175, 163 So. 470. The above statement of facts taken from plaintiff’s own testimony is sufficient to show that he contributed proximately to whatever injury he may have sustained from collision with the moving car. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affi…
-
Hysler v. State, 132 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1938)…th questions stated in different form go to the challenge of the validity of Chapter 16058, Acts of 1933. The statute has been before us in the case of State, ex rel. Landis, v. Harris, 120 Fla. 555, 163 Sou. 237, and in Croissant v. Harris, et al. 121 Fla. 141, 163 Sou. 470. When those cases were before us the Court was equally divided as to the constitutional validity of the- statute. Every question presented here was presented in the cases above cited, except the two questions numbered 5 and 6 hereinab…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence