ROBERT C. BIGBY
v.
LYKES BROTHERS, INC., A CORPORATION
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 denied a certification of constitutional questions from a lower court, finding that existing precedent already addressed the issues and that the certification did not comply with court rules.
Yes, controlling precedents exist in Florida that are applicable to the points in controversy. Therefore, the certified questions are not of the type contemplated by Rule 38, and the certification is denied.
“It is our view that there now exists in Florida controlling precedents applicable to points in controversy.”
Establishes the court's finding that existing law covers the issues.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA common law action was pending in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, involving the constitutionality of certain state statutes. The l…
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 Certified Question cases and more on FLexlaw
Pending in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, is a common law action involving the constitutionality of Sections 534.04, 534.33 and 534.42, Fla. Stats. 1941. It is the view of the lower court that there does not exist in Florida a controlling precedent determinative of the pending controversy, and, pursuant to Florida Supreme Court Rule 38, effective April 1, 1938, the constitutionality of the aforesaid Sections have been certified to this Court for adjudication. The record has been lodged here and briefs filed by counsel interested in the questions presented and the whole Court having heard oral argument, at the bar of this Court, and, being now fully advised in the premises;
It is our conclusion, after a careful study of the several questions presented, that the lower court has the authority and power to hear and determine the several questions certified to this Court, and make appropriate «orders thereon, when the same can or may be reviewed here on appeal. It is our view that there now exists in Florida controlling precedents *314applicable to points in controversy. The certified questions are not such as are contemplated or controlled by Rule 38, supra, and accordingly the certificate is hereby denied. See Schwob Co. v. Florida Industrial Commission, 152 Fla. 203, 11 So. (2nd) 782.
It is so ordered.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush v. Holmes, 919 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2006)…rida’s children except as those powers are specifically limited by the constitution. Id. (recognizing that “[t]he legislature’s power is inherent, though it may be limited by the constitution”); see also State ex rel. Green v. Pearson, 153 Fla. 314, 14 So. 2d 565, 567 (1943) (“It is a familiarly accepted doctrine of constitutional law that the power of the Legislature is inherent.... The legislative branch looks to the Constitution not for sources of power but for limitations upon power.”). Third, because ge…
-
Florida House OF Representatives v. The Honorable Charles J. Crist, Jr., 999 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2008)…words, the “residual” power — that is, powers not specifically assigned to the governor — belongs to the Legislature. Albeit many years ago and under different circumstances, we have implied as much. See State ex rel. Green v. Pearson, 153 Fla. 314, 14 So. 2d 565, 567 (1943) (“The legislative branch looks to the Constitution not for sources of power but for limitations upon power. But if such limitations are not found to exist, its discretion reasonably exercised may not be disturbed by the judicial branch o…
-
State Rd. Dept. v. Forehand, 56 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1952)…stitutionality of a given law becomes imperative. Moreover, in at least one case we actually considered and determined a constitutional question. See Cantwell v. St. Petersburg Port Authority, 155 Fla. 651, 21 So. 2d 139; Bigby v. Lykes Bros., Inc., 153 Fla. 313, 14 So. 2d 565 and Rudisill v. City of Tampa, 151 Fla. 284, 9 So. 2d 380. Section (a) of Rule 38, supra, provides as follows: "When it shall appear to a judge of the circuit court that there is involved in any cause pending before him questions or…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schwob Co. of Fla. v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 152 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1942)