W. L. DRAUGHON, AS CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR LEE COUNTY, ET AL.,
v.
FLORIDA HEITMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF HARVIE R. HEITMAN, DECEASED, 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 denied a petition for rehearing, reaffirming its prior decision that the enforcement of taxes did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The court stated its previous opinion fully addressed the appellee's constitutional arguments.
No, the court considered and passed upon the appellee's contention regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reaffirmed its prior holding that the tax enforcement did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
“The Court in its opinion heretofore filed did not fail to consider or to specifically pass upon, the contention of appellee that the enforcement of the taxes in controversy against appellee's real estate amounts to a denial of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Establishes that the court did consider the Fourteenth Amendment argument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee argued that the enforcement of taxes against her real estate violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.…
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 Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) cases and more on FLexlaw
On Extraordinary Petition for Rehearing
-The Court in its opinion heretofore filed did not fail to consider or to specifically pass upon, the contention of appellee that the enforcement of the taxes in controversy against appellee’s real estate amounts to a denial of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. On the contrary, the holding of the Court’s opinion was intended by the Court to apply to the appellee’s asserted violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution as much as to her asserted violations of the Constitution of Florida.
What we have heretofore had to say is, in our opinion, a complete answer to the appellee’s asserted violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as to her asserted violation of the Constitution of Florida, and the position taken In our opinion heretofore filed we now reaffirm by denying *823the appellee’s extraordinary petition for a rehearing now presented herein.
Extraordinary petition for rehearing, received, ordered filed and denied.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
(concurring specially). — While I adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion I concur in the view above expressed that the federal question involved was ruled upon by this Court in its opinion and decision heretofore rendered.
Brown, J.
(concurring specially). — While I adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion I concur in the view above expressed that the federal question involved was ruled upon by this Court in its opinion and decision heretofore rendered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bergen Brunswig Corp. & Health Application Sys., Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 415 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…402.34 does not alter that jurisdiction, but rather delimits appellee’s capacity to sue by describing those instances in which the established jurisdiction of the court may be invoked. Cf., State ex rel. Jacksonville Gas Co. v. Lewis, 125 Fla. 816, 170 So. 306 (1936). Since appellants declined to raise a “lack of capacity” argument before the circuit court, this argument may not now be pursued on appeal. Cf., Cowart v. City of West Palm Beach, 255 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1971). Appellants also argue that the cir…
-
Vanlandingham v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 154 Fla. 628 (Fla. 1944)…40.39, supra) hence there was no person authorized to sue. This section does not limit the right of action or otherwise affect the amount of recovery in so far as the [*630] third party is concerned. See State ex rel. v. Lewis, et al., 125 Fla. 816, 170 So. 306; Hartquist v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 139 Fla. 328, 190 So. 533. Where the relationship of employer and employee exists under our Workmen’s Compensation Act it is a form of voluntary contract sanctioned by this law. This is so inasmuch as either…
-
Buchanan v. State of Fla. & Nathan Mayo, 111 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…the same effect see Saunders v. Provisional Municipality of Pensacola, 24 Fla. 226, 4 So. 801; Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 So. 894; Miami Transit Co. v. Amos, 115 Fla. 842, 156 So. 279; State ex rel. Jacksonville Gas Co. v. Lewis, 125 Fla. 816, 170 So. 306; and State ex rel. Hurner v. Culbreath, 140 Fla. 634, 192 So. 814; L.R.A.1918E, 639. In the instant case the Child Molester Act did not in terms purport to amend any prior statutory provision, and consequently it was not required to reenact and pub…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence