STATE, EX REL. CARY D. LANDIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
v.
L. H O'QUINN, CHARLES E. BARR, AUG F. FANGER, JULIUS W. KAMINSKI, J. R. STRIPLING, CARL AULT, THOMAS MAXWELL AND HENRY MILANDER
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 upheld a 1937 legislative act that granted a new charter to the City of Hialeah, converting it from an aldermanic to a commission form of government with legislatively-named commissioners. The court rejected multiple constitutional challenges to the charter and compelled the old officeholders to surrender control to the new commissioners.
The Florida Supreme Court held that Senate Bill 1024 was constitutional and valid. The Legislature possesses plenary power over municipalities under Section Eight of Article Eight of the Florida Constitution, and none of the challenged provisions rendered the Act invalid. The demurrer to the information was overruled, requiring the old officeholders to surrender their offices to the new commissioners.
“Under the plenary power given the Legislature to deal with municipalities in this State under Section Eight of Article Eight of the Constitiition, we find no invalidity in the Act complained of.”
Establishes the constitutional basis for the Legislature's broad authority to restructure municipal governments and provides the primary reasoning for upholding the charter.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1024 in 1937, creating a new charter for the City of Hialeah that changed the city's government structure …
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 Home Rule Powers cases and more on FLexlaw
-The Legislature of 1937 enacted Senate Bill 1024 providing a new charter for the City of Hialeah, repealing the old charter and changing the government of the city from the aldermanic to the commission form. The new commissioners were named in the Act.
The mayor and councilmen under the old charter refused to surrender the records, offices and seal of the city to the new: commissioners. On such refusal being brought to the attention of the Attorney General, he filed an information in quo warranto in this Court suggesting that the mayor and councilmen under the old charter were unlawfully usurping the powers and duties of such offices. A rule nisi was issued and the mayor and a majority of the old councilmen demurred to the information. The cause is here for consideration on the demurrer to the information.
It is contended that the title to Senate Bill 1024 is: (1) Repugnant to Section Sixteen of Article Three of the Constitution, (2) Repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution in that it names the commissioners and wrests from the old councilmen the offices to which they were elected, (3) Repugnant to Section Nine and other Section of Article Six of the Constitution prescribing the qualification of electors and the purity of the ballot, (4) Is repugnant to the Constitution in that it amends and repeals the old charter by implication, (5) Is Repugnant to Section One of the Declaration of Rights, (6) Is repugnant to Sections Six and Seven of Article Eighteen of the Constitution relating to vacancies in office, (7) Is Repugnant to Section Twenty-four of Article Three of the Constitution and (8) Is void in that it adopts the boundaries of the city as defined in the old charter.
*838These questions have been carefully considered and to discuss them in detail would require a long opinion that would serve no useful purpose. Under the plenary power given the Legislature to deal with municipalities in this State under Section Eight of Article Eight of the Constitiition, we find no invalidity in the Act complained of.
The questions raised have in the main been fully answered in the following cases: State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. Burns, 38 Fla. 367, 21 So. 290; State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. Green, 36 Fla. 154, 18 So. 334; State, ex rel. Johnson, v. Johns, 92 Fla. 187, 109 So. 228; Spencer v. Hunt, 109 Fla. 248, 147 So. 282; State, ex rel. Landis, v. Dyer, 109 Fla. 33, 148 So. 201; State, ex rel. McMullen, v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 19, 135 So. 816; State, ex rel. Landis, v. Jones, 121 Fla. 216, 163 So. 590; City of Jacksonville v. Smoot, 83 Fla. 575, 92 So. 617; Wade v. City of Jacksonville, 113 Fla. 718, 152 So. 197; Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792, 78 So. 693.
The demurrer to the information is accordingly overruled.
It is so ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Terrell and Brown, J. J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Crooks, 153 Fla. 694 (Fla. 1943)…power to abolish an office or change the incumbent thereof, there being no constitutional limitation on the Legislature to deal with such corporations. City of Jacksonville v. Smoot, 83 Fla. 575, 92 So. 617; State, ex rel. Landis v. O’Quinn, et al., 128 Fla. 835, 175 So. 769; State ex rel. Gibbs v. Couch, et al., 139 Fla. 353, 190 So. 723; State ex rel. McIver, et al., v. Swank, 152 Fla. 565, 12 So. (2nd) 605. This rule would not apply to constitutional officers. Other questions or features of the act than…
Authorities Cited
- Van Pelt v. Hilliard, 75 Fla. 792 (Fla. 1918)
- State v. Johns, 92 Fla. 187 (Fla. 1926)
- Spencer v. Hunt, 109 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1933)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Attorney-General v. Green, 36 Fla. 154 (Fla. 1895)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Attorney-General v. Burns, 38 Fla. 367 (Fla. 1896)
- The City of Jacksonville v. Smoot, 83 Fla. 575 (Fla. 1922)
- State v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 19 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Dyer, 109 Fla. 33 (Fla. 1933)
- Wade v. City of Jacksonville, 113 Fla. 718 (Fla. 1934)
- State v. Jones, 121 Fla. 216 (Fla. 1935)