PINELLAS COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, APPELLEES
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 a lower court's decision upholding the validity of a 1945 act creating the Hillsborough County Water Conservation District. The court found no substantial evidence to invalidate the district's creation or boundaries and no repeal of the act by later statutes.
The court held that the creation and boundaries of the Hillsborough County Water Conservation District are valid and that Chapter 22935, Acts of 1945, has not been repealed by subsequent enactments.
“It appears to us that as applied to the facts appearing in the record of this case we should affirm the decision of the Circuit Court upholding the validity of Chapter 22935, Acts of 1945.”
Establishes the court's decision to affirm the lower court's ruling on the validity of the act.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePinellas County challenged the validity of the Hillsborough County Water Conservation District, created by Chapter 22935, Acts of 1945. The challenge …
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 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears to us that as applied to the facts appearing in the record of this case we should affirm the decision of the Circuit Court upholding the validity of Chapter 22935, Acts of 1945. We do not find in this record that the official action taken in creating the Hillsborough County Water Conservation District or fixing its boundaries is invalid or unsupported by substantial evidence. In the context of this record we do not find that Chapter 22935, Acts of 1945, has been repealed, either expressly or impliedly by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., or any later enactment. However, we do not undertake to pass upon any future questions that may arise concerning the authority of the State Board of Conservation in the exercise of its statutory powers, including Chapter 373, to supersede the authority of the Hillsborough County Water Conservation District.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, Acting C. J., ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., and TAYLOR, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
THE Florida BAR v. McCAIN, 361 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1978)…n denied by reputable members of the Bar. Initial fact-finding responsibility in disciplinary matters is imposed on the Referee and his findings should be upheld unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support. The Florida Bar v. Wagner, 212 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1968). We have carefully reviewed the evidence and find that the Referee’s report is supported by competent and substantial evidence. That evidence is clear and con [*707] vincing. We therefore approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of La…
-
THE Florida BAR v. J.B. Hooper, 509 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1987)…ing conflicts in the evidence is placed with the referee. The Florida Bar v. Hoffer, 383 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1980). The referee’s findings “should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support.” The Florida Bar v. Wagner, 212 So. 2d 770, 772 (Fla.1968). Rule 3-7.5(k)(l) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar provides that the referee’s findings of fact as to items of [*291] misconduct charged “shall enjoy the same presumption of correctness as the judgment of the trier of fact in…
-
THE Florida BAR v. Davis, 361 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1978)…find respondent guilty of those violations alleged in Count III, and increase the recommended discipline to disbarment. Our review of the record discloses clear and convincing evidence to support the findings of the Referee, Florida Bar v. Wagner, 212 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1968), except as to Counts II and IV, which charge illegal conduct involving moral turpitude. The record reveals that respondent did in fact issue four worthless checks with knowledge that there were insufficient funds on deposit with the bank…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence