NATHAN MAYO, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.,
v.
FLORIDA GRAPEFRUIT GROWERS' PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, 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 considered an appeal regarding an injunction against enforcing the Arsenical Spray Law on grapefruit production. Due to significant legislative changes enacted after the appeal was filed, the court questioned whether the appeal was moot and ordered parties to show cause why the lower court's decree should not be affirmed with modifications to account for new laws.
The court did not definitively rule on the constitutionality but questioned if the appeal was moot. It ordered the parties to show cause why the lower court's decree should not be affirmed, allowing for modifications based on new legislation.
“In consideration of the material changes made in the laws of Florida affecting the citrus industry enacted at the 1935 Session (Chapters 16854, 16855, 16856, 16857, 16858, 16859, 16860, 16861, 16862, and 16863, Acts of 1935, General Laws of Florida) which may have rendered the present appeal moot, it is ordered that appellants and appellees herein be cited to show within fifteen days' from the date of this order why the decree appealed from in this case should not be affirmed without prejudice, with leave to the Circuit Court to make such alterations or modifications therein as may be necessary to give effect to any law or laws subsequently enacted by the Legislature affecting the propositions involved in the present appeal.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for questioning the mootness of the appeal and the proposed course of action.
The Circuit Court entered a final decree perpetually enjoining state officials from enforcing the Arsenical Spray Law against grapefruit production, f…
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 Constitutionality Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a suit wherein the Circuit Court entered its final decree in equity perpetually enjoining the *157appellant, Nathan Mayo, as Commissioner of Agriculture, and Charles' P. Davis, as Chief Fruit Inspector, from enforcing or attempting to enforce, any of the provisions of the Arsenical Spray Law as against grapefruit production by appellees, as provided by Chapter 11844, Acts of 1927, as amended by Chapter 14485, Acts of 1929, which Act the Chancellor held would be unconstitutional if applied to appellees’ production of grapefruit.
This case has been here before on an appeal from an interlocutory injunction. Mayo v. Florida Grapefruit Growers Protective Ass’n, 112 Fla. 117, 151 Sou. Rep. 25.
In consideration of the material changes made in the laws of Florida affecting the citrus industry enacted at the 1935 Session (Chapters 16854, 16855, 16856, 16857, 16858, 16859, 16860, 16861, 16862, and 16863, Acts of 1935, General Laws of Florida) which may have rendered the present appeal moot, it is ordered that appellants and appellees herein be cited to show within fifteen days' from the date of this order why the decree appealed from in this case should not be affirmed without prejudice, with leave to the Circuit Court to make such alterations or modifications therein as may be necessary to give effect to any law or laws subsequently enacted by the Legislature affecting the propositions involved in the present appeal.
Rule nisi in accordance with order entered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. Werner, 232 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…the whole of the principal sum and interest secured by the mortgage due and payable. Prince v. Mahin, (1917) 73 Fla. 525, 74 So. 696; Gus’ Baths v. Lightbown, (1931), 101 Fla. 1205, 1211, 133 So. 85, 135 So. 300; Liles v. Savage, (1935) 121 Fla. 83, 163 So. 399. And the filing of suit to foreclose operates as notice to the mortgagor of the election to accelerate, where the election to do so is declared in the complaint (as was done in this case) or, in the absence of such declaration, where the complaint o…
-
Amos Fowler & Amylene, Inc. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Defuniak Springs now known as First Fed. Sav. Bank of Defuniak Springs, 643 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…the whole of the principal sum and interest secured by the mortgage due and payable. Prince v. Mahin, (1917) 73 Fla. 525, 74 So. 696; Gus’ Baths v. Lightbown, (1931), 101 Fla. 1205, 1211, 133 So. 85,135 So. 300; Liles v. Savage, (1935) 121 Fla. 83, 163 So. 399. And the filing of suit to foreclose operates as notice to the mortgagor of the election to accelerate, where the election to do so is declared in the complaint ... or, in the absence of such declaration, where the complaint on its face shows that f…
-
Scarfo v. Peever, 405 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…r, Inc. v. Goolsby, 67 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1953); Murray v. Stalnaker, 154 Fla. 64, 16 So. 2d 650 (1944); Seligmann v. Bisz, 123 Fla. 493, 167 So. 38 (1936); Van Huss v. Prudential Ins. Co., 123 Fla. 20, 165 So. 896 (1936); Liles v. Savage, 121 Fla. 83, 163 So. 399 (1935); Douglas Properties v. Stix, 118 Fla. 354, 159 So. 1 (1935); Stegemann v. Emery, 108 Fla. 672, 146 So. 650 (1933); Jaudon v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States, 102 Fla. 782, [*1067] 136 So. 517 (1931); Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mayo v. Florida Grapefruit Growers Protective Assn., 112 Fla. 117 (Fla. 1933)