STATE, EX REL. CARY D. LANDIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.,
v.
CITY OF HAINES CITY, M. D. GRAFF, AS MAYOR COMMISSIONER, AND FRED WALSMA AND VICTOR WRAY, AS CITY COMMISSIONERS OF SAID CITY
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 the dismissal of a quo warranto action challenging the legality of territorial expansions of the City of Haines City. The Attorney General and co-relators sought to invalidate several statutory incorporations and re-incorporations of the city, claiming they unconstitutionally subjected rural lands and their inhabitants to municipal taxation and regulation.
The court affirmed dismissal of the action, holding that even if the allegations showed an unconstitutional abuse of legislative authority in fixing the city's present boundaries, the co-relators could not challenge the inclusion due to the lapse of time since the lands were incorporated into the city.
“Each and every one of the proceedings and acts are void and unconstitutional because of the violation of the constitutional rights of the co-relators and others similarly situated, by including wild and uncultivated lands, citrus groves, farms and other rural territory, thereby subjecting it, and the inhabitants of the said territory to the imposition of needless, unnecessary and oppressive taxation, rules, regulations and municipal ordinances.”
Statement of the co-relators' primary constitutional challenge to the city's territorial expansions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Town of Haines City was incorporated in 1914 covering approximately 2,160 acres and was reincorporated by statute in 1919. In 1925, two chapters o…
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 Municipal Incorporation cases and more on FLexlaw
Quo warranto proceedings to test the legality of the inclusion of described areas in the City of Haines City,- Florida, were brought by the Attorney General and one co-relator on January 5, 1933. An amended information by the Attorney General and numerous corelators charging the illegal inclusion of greater areas was filed December 1, 1934. A second amended information was filed February 6, 1935.
■It appears from the second amended information that in 1914 the Town of Haines City was incorporated by its inhabitants, the area including approximately 2,160 acres; that the Town of Haines City, covering the same area, was by statute incorporated in 1919, Chapter 8272, Laws of *562Florida; that by Chapters 10678 and 11531, Acts of 1925, the City of Haines City was incorporated, covering over seven thousand acres. Chapter 12790, Acts of 1927, reincorporated the City of Haines City and reduced its area to 4130 acres. The population of the city in 1930 was 3,037 and 4,388 in 1935.
It is contended that:
“Each and every one of the proceedings and acts are void and unconstitutional ’ because of the violation of the constitutional rights of the co-relators and others similarly situated, by including wild and uncultivated lands, citrus groves, farms and other rural territory, thereby subjecting it, and the inhabitants of the said territory to the imposition of needless, unnecessary and oppressive taxation, rules, regulations and municipal, ordinances. * * * That these Acts and proceedings violate Sections 1, 4 and 12 of the Declaration of Rights, Sections 1 and 5 of Article 9 of the Constitution.”
The Legislature by Chapter 12790 reduced the area of the city nearly one half; and even if the allegations of the information be regarded as sufficient to show an unconstitutional abuse of legislative authority in fixing the present boundaries of the city insofar as the co-relators’ described property is embraced in the city, such co-relators cannot now be heard to complain in view of the lapse of time since the lands have been included in the city. It is not shown that Chapter 12790 was not legally enacted or that on its face it violates the Constitution or any public or private right that should be redressed in this action on the relation of the Attorney General or the co-relators. See State, ex rel., v. City of Coral Gables, 120 Fla. 492, 163 So. 308.
In city of Winter Park v. State, ex rel. Attorney General, 119 Fla. 343, 161 So. 386, the statutes held invalid, Chap*563ters 11325 and 11802, Laws of 1925, unduly increased the territorial limits of the municipality that had been defined and limited by previous statutes, Chapter 9960, Acts of 1923, and Chapter 4295, Acts of 1893.
The final judgment sustaining the demurrer to the second amended information and dismissing the action, to which the writ of error herein was taken, is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., dissents.
Davis, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haines City Heights, Inc. v. The City of Haines City, 127 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1937)…and that no contest over the validity of their original inclusion in the city, because of a constitutional lack of municipal benefits, has heretofore been brought. In the case of State, ex rel. Landis, Attorney General, v. Haines City, 126 Fla. 561, 169 Sou. Rep. 383, an adjoining forty acres of land were involved. In that case this Court held that an objection to the incorporation of the adjoining forty into the city in 1925 had become barred by laches, so relief by quo warranto to oust the City of Haines City…
-
Morin v. City of Stuart, 111 F.2d 773 (5th Cir. 1940)…efore disapproved and vacated and the order of dismissal as thus modified, is affirmed. Affirmed. Chapter 11214, Special Acts 1925. City of Sarasota v. Skillin et al., 130 Fla. 724, 178 So. 837. State ex rel. Landis v. Haines City, 126 Fla. 561, 169 So. 383; State ex rel. Landis v. Coral Gables, 120 Fla. 492, 163 So. 308, 101 A.L.R. 578; Haines City Heights, Inc., v. Haines City, 127 Fla. 86, 172 So. 484; Town of Lake Maitland v. State ex rel. Landis, 127 Fla. 653, 173 So. 677; City of Auburndale v. St…
Authorities Cited
- State v. City of Coral Gables, 120 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1935)
- City of Winter Park v. State, 119 Fla. 343 (Fla. 1935)