IN THE MATTER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATION OF FEBRUARY 19, 1872, RELATIVE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 3D SECTION OF APPROPRIATION BILL
Supreme Court Room, Tallahassee, Fla.,
Ilis Excellency Samuel T. Hay,
Lieut, and Acting Governor of Florida :
Sir : Tour communication of this date is received.
The effect- of the clause- of the Constitution which you mention is to render everything in a law which may be called strictly “ a law making appropriations” unconstitutional which proposes to do anything other than make appropriations. The thii’d section of the “General Appro-' priation Bill,” which you call to our atteution, does not make an appropriation, and for this reason it is in oxxr opinion unconstitutional and therefore void.
Yery respectfully,
James H. Westcott, Jr.,
For the Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ernest Amos as Comptroller of the State of Fla. v. Burke and John Neel, 74 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1917)…he General Appropriation Bill, the purpose of which is to provide for salaries and. other current expenses of the State from being obnoxious to the provision of the.Constitution under consideration. In the advisory opinion of Mr. Justice Westcott in 14 Fla. 283, the Governor asked the opinion of the Judges of the Supreme Court “upon the proper construction to be put upon the aforesaid Section 3 of the General Appropriation Bill,” and in answering the inquiry, Mr. Justice Westcott says: “The third section o…
-
Dep't OF Admin. v. Mallory E. Horne, 269 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1972)…ppellant’s motion to dismiss is accordingly Affirmed. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. . Dickinson v. Stone, 251 So. 2d 268 (Fla.1971); Lee v. Dowda, 155 Fla. 68, 19 So. 2d 570 (1944); Opinion of Justices, 14 Fla. 283 (1872); and Opinion of Justices, 14 Fla. 285 (1872). . McSween v. State, Live Stock Sanitary Board, 97 Fla. 749, 122 So. 239, 125 So. 704 (1929); 65 A.L.R. 508; R. L. Bernardo & Sons, Inc. v. Duncan, 134 So. 2d 297 (Fla.App.1st 1961); Robinson’s In…
-
Douglas v. Webber, 99 Fla. 755 (Fla. 1930)…en an enactment, though duly introduced and passed, contains provisions .that violate paramount law, as by containing subjects forbidden by the Constitution, Secs. 16 and 30, Article III, In Re Executive Communication Relative to Appropriation Bill, 14 Fla. 283, 285, or by containing provisions that violate or conflict with the Constitution or with dominant Federal authority, .the courts may in proper cases adjudicate such conflict with the paramount law, and the enactment will be inoperative to the extent…
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