EX PARTE BERT PORTER
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 held that a 1939 statute prohibiting nudist colonies in counties with populations between 155,000 and 165,000 is an unconstitutional special and local act that does not comply with Florida's constitutional requirements for general legislation. The Court ordered the petitioner's discharge from custody.
The statute is a special and local act with no reasonable relation between the classification and subject matter, and therefore violates Article III, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution and cannot stand. Additionally, Section 2 of the Act (prohibiting all nudist practices statewide) is ineffective because the Act's title limits its scope.
“We hold that this Act is a special and local Act because there is no reasonable relation between the attempted classification and the subject matter which warrants it being held a General Act.”
Establishes the core holding that the statute fails the reasonable relation test for general acts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBert Porter was charged with violating Chapter 19563, Acts of 1939, which prohibited operating nudist colonies and engaging in nudist practices in cou…
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 Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner, being charged with the offense attempted to be denounced by Chapter 19563, Acts of 1939, and being incarcerated, as it is alleged, sued out writ of habeas corpus in this Court.
The title of this Act is:
“An Act To Prohibit and Make It Unlawful To Operate or Carry on a Nudist Colony in Counties Having a Population of Not Less than 155,000 and Not More than 165,000, According to the Last State and Federal Census: Prohibiting the Practice of Nudists, and Prescribing the Penalties for the Violation of This Act.”
Sections 1 and 2 of the Act provide:
“Section 1. In all counties having a population of not less than 155,000 and not more than 165,000 according to the last State and Federal census, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to operate or carry on, or engage in the operation of a nudist colony in this State.
“Section 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in' nudist practice in this State.”
We hold that this Act is a special and local Act because there is no reasonable relation between the attempted classification and the subject matter which warrants it being held a General Act. See Anderson v. Board of Puplic Instruction, 102 Fla. 695, 136 Sou. 334, and cases there cited.
As a local and special Act it cannot stand, because it appears that the provisions of Sec. 21, Article III of the Constitution were in nowise complied with.
The inclusion of Section 2 in the provisions of the Act is ineffective because the title of the Act limits its scope as to preclude such provisions in the Act.
Having reached the conclusions above indicated, it be*713comes unnecessary to discuss other questions presented, though they may have merit.
The petitioner should be discharged.
So ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., Brown and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., and Chapman, J., agree to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fay W. Cates & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Heffernan, 154 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1944)…361 is violative of Section 20, Article III of the Constitution in that it is a local act and attempts to regulate appeals from civil courts of records to the circuit courts and affects only the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. Ex Parte Porter, 141 Fla. 711, 193 So. 750; State ex rel. Blalock, et al., v. Lee, 146 Fla. 385, 1 So. (2nd) 193; and State ex rel. Baldwin v. Coleman, 148 Fla. 155, 3 So. (2nd) 802, are relied on to support this contention. These cases have been examined but for reasons of diff…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Arthur Cotterill v. Bessenger, 133 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1961)…the determinative point in the case, i. e., the relationship of the object of the act to the population range. It is impossible for' us to find any such distinction between this act and the one with which we dealt in Ex parte Porter, 141 Fla. 711, 193 So. 750, as would justify a different ruling here. In the cited case this court held unconstitutional an act prohibiting the operation of a nudist colony in counties having populations of not less than 155,000 and not more than 165,000 on the ground that th…
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction for the Cnty. of Hillsborough, 102 Fla. 695 (Fla. 1931)