STATE, EX REL. X-CEL STORES,
v.
J. M. LEE, AS COMPTROLLER. ORIGINAL MANDAMUS; STATE, EX REL. CUNNINGHAM, ET AL., V. ROBERT W. DAVIS, JR., ET AL. ORIGINAL MANDAMUS; STATE, EX REL. LANE DRUG STORES, INC., V. CLYDE H. SIMPSON, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF DUVAL COUNTY ORIGINAL MANDAMUS; STATE, EX REL. THOMAS B. ADAMS, AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, ET AL., V. J. M. LEE, AS COMPTROLLER. ORIGINAL QUO WARRANTO; STATE, EX REL. LANE DRUG STORES, INC., V. R. H. CARSWELL, AS TAX COLLECTOR OF DUVAL COUNTY. ORIGINAL MANDAMUS; STATE, EX REL C. CHAVERS, ET AL., V. J. M. LEE, AS COMPTROLLER. ORIGINAL MANDAMUS; C. CHAVERS V. JOHN P. HARRELL, SHERIFF OF WASHINGTON COUNTY. ORIGINAL HABEAS CORPUS
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 consolidated seven original jurisdiction cases challenging the validity of Senate Bill No. 724 (Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935), which regulated retail chain stores. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute, finding that the Act's Subdivision A and Class 1 of Subdivision B of Section 4 were valid, while declaring Classes 2-6 of Subdivision A invalid.
The Court held that Senate Bill No. 724 was duly passed by both Houses, properly signed by legislative officers, and lawfully approved by the Governor on June 1, 1935, becoming law. Subdivision A and Class 1 of Subdivision B of Section 4 of the Act were valid and enforceable, while Classes 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Subdivision A were invalid.
“It was judicially determined that Senate Bill No. 724, Chapte 16848, Acts of 1935, was duly passed by each House of the Legislature”
Establishes that the statute was properly enacted by the legislative branch
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSenate Bill No. 724 was passed by both houses of the Legislature and signed by the Governor, becoming law on June 1, 1935. The Act regulated retail ch…
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 Quo Warranto cases and more on FLexlaw
In State, ex rel., v. X-Cel Stores, Inc., above, it was judicially determined that Senate Bill No. 724, Chapte 16848, Acts of 1935, was duly passed by each House of the Legislature, the opinion and judgment being concurred in by Justices Whitfield, Terrell, Buford, and Davis, Justices Ellis and Brown, dissenting.
In State, ex rel. Cunningham, v. Davis, above, it was adjudged that Senate Bill No. 724, Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935, was duly signed by the Legislative officers and duly presented to the Governor for his action thereon. It became a law upon its approval by the Governor on June 1, 1935. The opinion and judgment of the Court were concurred in by Justices Whitfield, Terrell, Buford and Davis, Justices Ellis and Brown dissented.
In State, ex rel. Lane Drug Stores, v. Simpson, and in State, ex rel. Adams, v. Lee, Comptroller, above, it was held that all of Subdivision A and only Class 1 of Subdivision B of Section 4 of Senate Bill No. 724, Chapter 16848, Acts of 1935, are valid, Class 1 of Subdivision B, covering each store in all chains of stores as well as all single stores covered by the Act. The opinion and judgment in each of the two cases were concurred in by Justices Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, Justices Ellis and Buford dissented in part as to the validity of Classes 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Subdivision A of Section 4 of the Act.
The above listed cases of State, ex rel. Lane Drug Stores, Inc., v. Carswell; State, ex rel. Chavers, v. Lee, Comptroller, *702and Chavers v. Harrell, Sheriff, were disposed of on the authority of the four cases first stated above.
Rehearing severally denied in each of the above styled' cases in which rehearing has been applied for.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Brown, Terrell, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Robt. W. Davis, 124 Fla. 592 (Fla. 1936)…ding from or qualifying, but reiterating the adjudication in State, ex rel. Landis, v. Thompson, 121 Fla. 561, 164 So. 280, as stated above, under Sections 1 and 2, Article III, of the Constitution, this court in State, ex rel. Cunningham, v. Davis, 122 Fla. 700, 123 Fla. 41, 166 So. 289, 574, has in effect adjudged that the peremptory command of Section 17, Article III, of the Constitution, that every bill passed by the Legislature shall be signed by stated legislative officers, and that the absolute comma…
-
Lee v. Bond-Howell Lumber Co., 123 Fla. 202 (Fla. 1936)…e, ex rel. Lane Drug Stores, v. Simpson, 122 Fla. 582, 166 Sou. Rep. 227; State, ex rel. Adams, v. Lee, 122 Fla. 639, 166 Sou. Rep. 249; State, ex rel. X-Cel Stores, Inc., v. Lee, 122 Fla. 685, 166 Sou. Rep. 568; State, ex rel. Cunningham, v. Davis, 122 Fla. 700, 166 Sou. Rep. 289, opinions filed at the present term of this Court. The appeal now before this Court for consideration is from an order granting leave to the complainants below permitting them to file a supplemental and amended bill cf complaint…
-
The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction FOR the Cnty. OF Sumter v. Wright, 76 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1955)…tion upon, rather than a grant of, power. Cotten v. Leon County Commissioners, 6 Fla. 610; State v. Board of Public Instruction for Dade County, 126 Fla. 142, 170 So. 602; State ex rel. Cunningham v. Davis, 123 Fla. 41, 166 So. 289, rehearing denied 122 Fla. 700, 166 So. 574; Savage v. Board of Public Instruction for Hillsborough County, 101 Fla. 1362, 133 So. 341; Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305, 19 So. 2d 876. The time-honored principle or rule of law that “contracts for the payment of money bear interest…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence