STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES CARHARTT, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Appellant received a citation on March 30, 1975, for violating Section 316.028(3), Florida Statutes.* In an order dated October 9, 1975, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss on the ground that this statute was unconstitutionally vague and arbitrary and constituted a denial of due process of law.
On March 17, 1976, this Court filed its opinion in the case of Roberts v. State, 329 So. 2d 296. The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 316.028(3), Florida Statutes, against a challenge identical to the argument advanced by the appellee in the instant case, holding, inter alia, that the statute is a reasonable exercise by the Legislature of the police power of this State.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. *
“It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent, or above, to drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this state.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cnty. OF Volusia v. State, 417 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1982)…ad valorem taxing power occasioned by the pledging of other sources of revenue does not subject such bonds or certificates to that constitutional requirement. 162 So. 2d at 258. More recently, we reaffirmed this position in State v. Alachua County, 335 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1976). This issue is not governed by State v. Halifax Hospital District, 159 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1963), wherein we declined to affirm validation of hospital improvement bonds to be repaid from gross revenues of the hospital. In that case, we held…1 / 3
-
State of Fla. & the Taxpayers v. Sarasota Cnty., 372 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1979)…intra-county special district does not per se lack a valid public purpose. Second, many capital improvements undertaken by county governments directly benefit only a limited geographic area within the county. For example, in State v. Alachua County, 335 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1976), we affirmed a trial court order validating certain special obligation bonds. One challenge raised in that case by the state attorney was that the project undertaken served no valid county purpose. The projects contemplated included, inte…
-
State v. City OF Daytona Beach, 431 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1983)…this construction of the agreement is incidental. The fact that such an obligation may have an incidental effect on ad valorem taxation does not subject the indebtedness to the constitutional requirement of a referendum. See State v. Alachua County, 335 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1976); Town of Medley v. State, 162 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1964). We have held such a pledge to be a promise to levy ad valorem taxes only when the record clearly reflects that all legally available non-ad valorem revenue sources have been pledged and…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roberts v. State, 329 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1976)