MRS. J. D. ALDERMAN, A WIDOW, ET AL., AS MEMBERS OF AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA MILK COMMISSION, APPELLANTS,
v.
PURITAN DAIRY, INC., ET AL., 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 reversed a lower court's dismissal of a bill of complaint challenging the constitutionality of Chapter 19231 (1939), which created the Florida Milk Commission. The court found that prior precedent in The Milk Commission v. Dade County Dairies, Inc. resolved the constitutional questions raised regarding the Commission's powers and its price-regulation orders.
The court held that both constitutional challenges were resolved by its prior decision in The Milk Commission v. Dade County Dairies, Inc., and therefore reversed the dismissal of the complaint, finding no constitutional infirmity in either the statutory scheme or the Commission's pricing order.
“This cause is before us on appeal from final decree dismissing bill of complaint by order in our opinion on petition for certiorari under Rule 24.”
Establishes the procedural posture and that the lower court granted the motion to dismiss.
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 Milk Commission was created by Chapter 19231, Laws of Florida, 1939. Section 4 of the Act provided that the Commission could not supervise…
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 Special Or Local Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on appeal from final decree dismissing bill of complaint by order in our opinion on petition for certiorari under Rule 24.
Two questions are posed and argued for our consideration, viz.:
“Question 1. Is Chapter 19231, Laws of Florida, 1939, which Act created the Florida Milk Commission, invalid or unconstitutional because of the fact that in Section 4 of said Act, which relates to the general powers conferred by the Legislature upon the Milk Commission, it is proved in Subsection (a) thereof; That the Commission shall not supervise or regulate any natural marketing area except upon petition of a group of representative producers who petition the Commission to invoke the provisions of this Act ?”
“Question 2. “Is an order duly passed by the Milk Commission regulating the price of milk unconstitutional, *347void and unenforceable because of the fact that the same is an unlawful delegation of legislative authority, due to the fact that said order is operative in only one area created by the Commission as to the prices fixed in said order, on the theory that the said order has the effect of being a legislative Act, but is in effect a local or special Act, and would, therefore, be violative of Article III, Section 21, of the Constitution of Florida, which provides for the passage of special or local laws enacted by the Legislature?”
These two questions were considered, discussed at length and adjudicated in the opinion and judgment in the case of The Milk Commission, et al., v. Dade County 'Dairies, Inc., et al., filed December 20, 1940.
On authority of the opinion and judgment, siipra, the decree complained of here is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
So ordered.
Reversed and remanded.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Buford, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., 128 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1961)…e Operating Corp. v. Town & Beach Pl. Co., Fla.App.1960, 123 So. 2d 353; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, Sect. 307 (1955). . Miami Homo Milk Producers Ass’n v. Milk Control Board, 1936, 124 Fla. 797, 169 So. 541; Alderman v. Puritan Dairy, 1941, 146 Fla. 345, 1 So. 2d 177; Shiver v. Lee, Fla.1956, 89 So. 2d 318. . 1 Fla.Jur., Administrative Law, Section 234 (1955). Riley v. Lawson, 1932, 106 Fla. 521, 143 So. 619. . Davis, Administrative Law (1951), para. 190 contains an excellent dissertation on this subject.- .…
-
McPHERSON v. Flynn, 397 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1981)…right to hold legislative office. The courts in this state are without jurisdiction to determine the right of one who has been elected to legislative office. English v. Bryant, 152 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1963); State ex rel. Rigby v. Junkin, 146 Fla. 347, 1 So. 2d 177 (1941). At common law, except for limited application of quo warranto, there was no right to contest in court any public election, because such a contest is political in nature and therefore outside the judicial power. See Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F…
-
English v. Honorable Farris Bryant, 152 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1963)…ereof. The Constitution of Florida, Art. Ill, Sec. 6, F.S.A., provides inter alia as follows : “Each house shall judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its own members, * * This Court in State ex rel. Rigby v. Junkin, 146 Fla. 347, 1 So. 2d 177 (1941), construed the quoted provision to mean that: “This Court is without jurisdiction to determine the rights of one who has been elected a member of the Legislature to hold such office. That question is one which only the Legislature may determ…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence