SAM'L D. JORDAN, AS CLERK, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. FRED H. DAVIS, AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 reversed its prior decision, finding a state law that arbitrarily changed jury selection requirements for certain counties unconstitutional. The court held that the classification lacked a reasonable basis and was therefore invalid.
Yes, the classification created by Chapter 13605 is arbitrary and lacks a reasonable basis in the subject regulated, rendering the act invalid.
“Even if Chapter 13605 be a general law, the classification upon which it is predicated has no reasonable basis in the subject regulated and is purely arbitrary, rendering the act invalid.”
Establishes the core reasoning for invalidating the statute.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChapter 13605 of the Acts of 1929 purported to amend general statutes concerning jury selection for county judges' courts. It increased the number of …
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 Statutory Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
— This Court affirmed a judgment in mandamus proceedings in which Chapter 13605, Acts of 1929 was sustained as a valid general law, Jordon v. State, 128 So. R. 35. On rehearing the validity of the statute is challenged on a ground that has a basis in the record but was not presented or considered at the former hearing.
*495Chapter 13605, Acts of 1929, purports to change the existing general statutes relating to the number of names to be annually selected and placed in the jury box for the-county judges’ courts, Sections 4465, 4471, Comp. Gen. Laws, by increasing the number from not less than two hundred nor more than three hundred,, to not less than 750 in counties having a population between 40,000 and 43,000, leaving the smaller number to be chosen in the larger as well as the smaller counties. Even if Chapter 13605 be a general law, the classification upon which it is predicated has no reasonable basis in the subject regulated and is purely arbitrary, rendering the act invalid.
Reversed.
Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Anderson v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction for the Cnty. of Hillsborough, 102 Fla. 695 (Fla. 1931)…ty, regardless of the guise in which it may have been framed and regardless of whether the particular county or locality intended to be affected by it is in terms named or identified in the Act or not. See Jordan v. State ex rel. Davis, 129 So. 747, 100 Fla. 494; Stripling v. Thomas, 132 So. 824, 101 Fla. 1015; Whitney vs. Hillsborough County, 127 So. 486, 99 Fla. 628. . In this case the bill of complaint alleges, the answer admits and this Court judicially knows that Hills-borough County is the only count…
-
State v. Harris, 120 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1934)…s Ellis and Buford, the Act here in question does not meet the tests laid down in Anderson v. Board of Public Instruction, 102 Fla. 695, 136 So. 334; State, ex rel. Buford, v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 206, 93 So. 667; Jordan v. State, ex rel., 100 Fla. 494, 129 So. 747; Stripling v. Thomas, 101 Fla. 1015, 132 So. 824; State, ex rel., v. O’Quinn, Clerk, 154 So. 166, and the Alabama Case of Vaughan v. State, 102 So. 222, 212 Ala. 258. It has been said by many courts that “the commonly accepted definition of a genera…1 / 2
-
Knight v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction for the Cnty. of Hillsborough, 102 Fla. 922 (Fla. 1931)…section 21, Article III, constitution, and the subject of which is forbidden to be enacted in a local or special law by section 20, Article III, constitution. See Anderson v. Board, decided August 3, 1931, 136 So. 334; Jordan v. State, 100 Fla. 494, 129 So. 747; Stripling v. Thomas, 101 Fla. 1015, 132 So. 824; Whitney v. Hillsborough County et al., 99 Fla. 628, 127 So. 486. The entire Act is therefore inoperative. Affirmed. Terrell and Davís, J.J., concur. Buford, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., conc…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence