CITY OF TAMPA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
v.
TAMPA TIMES COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE TRIBUNE COMPANY, 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 struck down a Tampa city ordinance imposing graduated annual license taxes on newspapers based on circulation, holding that such a tax violates the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court relied on Grosjean v. American Press Co. to establish that taxes on newspapers cannot be calibrated by circulation volume, regardless of the city's good intentions.
A license tax based on volume of circulation and graduated by scale is void as impairing the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court affirmed the lower court's decree striking down the ordinance.
“any license tax based on volume of circulation and graduated by scale as is here presented is void as impairing the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution”
Statement of the controlling legal principle upon which the court rests its decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Tampa enacted an ordinance imposing annual license taxes on newspapers on a graduated scale: $40 for papers with less than 10,000 circulat…
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 Reasonable Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
The City of Tampa, by ordinance, imposed an annual license tax on newspapers as follows: for papers with less than ten thousand circulation $40.00, for ten thousand to thirty thousand $500.00, and for those in excess of thirty thousand $700.00. Appellees challenge the validity of the ordinance because it is discriminatory and it is not imposed with regard to any reasonable classification as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 1 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Florida. The further objection is made that inasmuch as the classification is based solely upon circulation, it restrains the freedom of the press and is repugnant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The case reaches this Court on appeal from a decree holding the ordinance bad. The answer to a single question may dispose of the case; i.e., may a license tax be upheld against a newspaper, when assessed on a graduated scale as here stated, based on the volume of circulation?
Appellees rest their case almost entirely on the authority of Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 80 L. Ed. 660. Appellant seeks to distinguish the two cases and calls attention to the case of Giragi v. Moore, 64 P. (2nd) 819, 110 A.L.R. 314, wherein a license tax was upheld by the Arizona court. The Arizona statute was later attacked in the federal court resulting in the state court’s decision being upheld. Arizona Pub. Co. v. O’Neil, et al., 22 F. Supp. 117. The latter decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Arizona Pub. Co. v. O’Neil, et al., 304 U.S. 543. We *711are not impressed with the effect of the decisions based on the Arizona statute because the tax was not regulated by the volume of circulation, but instead was based upon the gross income of the paper.
It would serve no useful purpose to cite other authorities inasmuch as we have concluded that the decision in this case is controlled by Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra. We cannot say that the tax levied here is arbitrary, unreasonable or was actuated by anything other than good motive, however we rest our decision solely upon the proposition that any license tax based on volume of circulation and graduated by scale as is here presented is void as impairing the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The decree appealed from is affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J„ TERRELL, BROWN, CHAPMAN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Volusia Cnty. Kennel Club, Inc. v. Haggard, 73 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1954)…e “sails” of one legitimate business may be “trimmed” to reduce its power, the sails of any other legitimate business may be trimmed for the same purpose. Indeed, this very kind of tax was attempted. In the case of City of Tampa v. Tampa Times Co., 153 Fla. 709, 15 So. 2d 612, in striking down such a tax, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Adams, concurred in by Chief Justice Buford and Justices Terrell, Brown, Chapman, Thomas and Sebring, this court said: “It would serve no useful purpose to cite other authori…
-
Tampa Times Co. v. City OF Tampa, 158 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1947)…v. Town of McCormich, 321 U.S. 573, 64 S. Ct. 717, 88 L. Ed. 938, 152 A.L.R. 317; Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 62 S. Ct. 190, 86 L. Ed. 192; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 58 S. Ct. 666, 82 L. Ed. 949; City of Tampa v. Tampa Times Company, 153 Fla. 709, 15 So. 2d. 612. The City relies mostly upon the cases, Arizona Publishing Company v. O’Neil et al, 304 U.S. 543, 58 S. Ct. 950, 82 L. Ed. 1518; Giragi v. Moore, 48 Ariz. 33, 58 Pac. 2d. 1249; 110 A.L.R. 314; On rehearing Giragi v. Moore, 49 Ariz.…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1936)
- Ariz. Publ'g Co. v. O'Neil, 304 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1938)
- Am. Nat'l Bank v. Ames, 304 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1938)