JAMES E. ZEDALIS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HELEN C. FOSTER 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.
Zedalis sued the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County for failing to provide adequate notice before vacating a road. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the general notice requirements of the Florida Highway Code of 1955 (now Chapter 336, Fla. Stat.) supersede the more stringent notice requirements of a 1949 special act applicable only to Pinellas County.
The general notice provisions of the Florida Highway Code of 1955 control over the special notice provisions of the 1949 special act. Because the 1955 act was a complete revision and restatement of the law on the subject of public roads, it operated as an implied repeal of the earlier special act dealing with the same subject.
[1] A general revision of the law on a subject by the legislature implies repeal of prior special acts on the same subject, absent a clear contrary intent.
[2] A comprehensive codification of laws relating to public roads supersedes prior special acts concerning road vacation procedures.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When reconciliation is not possible the maxim generalia speeialibus non derogant would normally apply, thereby retaining the effectiveness of the special act notwithstanding a subsequent general act on the same subject. However, where, as in this case, the general act is an overall revision or general restatement of the law on the same subject, the special act will be presumed to have been superseded and repealed.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that a complete general revision of a subject matter supersedes prior special acts dealing with the same subject
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County held a public hearing and vacated Bayshore Drive in Ozona after publishing one notice of the hear…
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 Implied Repeal Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
NORRIS, WILLIAM A., Jr., Associate Judge.
The trial judge dismissed with prejudice appellants’ complaint alleging that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County failed to give proper notice of a public hearing wherein the commissioners vacated a small road commonly known as Bayshore Drive in the community of Ozona. The trial judge found that the notice provisions of the general law as now contained in Chapter 336, Florida Statutes (1975), controlled over the notice provisions of a 1949 special act relating only to Pinellas County. We agree and affirm.
The special act, Chapter 26155, Laws of Florida, Sp.Acts 1949, required, among other things, that notice be published for two consecutive weeks. In 1955 the legislature enacted Chapter 29965, Laws of Florida, consisting of 169 sections, in order to clarify and codify the laws of the state relating to all public roads, state, county and city. This act was identified as the “Florida Highway Code of 1955” and now appears in part as Chapter 336, Florida Statutes (1975). Section 336.10, Florida Statutes, requires the commissioners to publish only one notice of public hearing prior to vacating a road. This was done by the Pinellas County Commission.
The trial judge was faced with apparently conflicting statutory requirements. Basic rules of statutory construction require that conflicting statutes or parts of statutes be reconciled wherever possible. When reconciliation is not possible the maxim generalia speeialibus non derogant would normally apply, thereby retaining the effectiveness of the special act notwithstanding a subsequent general act on the same subject. However, where, as in this case, the general act is an overall revision or general restatement of the law on the same subject, the special act will be presumed to have been superseded and repealed. Town of Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Local 1866, I.A.F.F., 275 So. 2d 247 (Fla.1973). The legislature’s complete revision of a subject is an implied repeal of earlier acts dealing with the same subject unless the contrary intent is clearly shown. Where an act is intended to cover an entire subject of legislation it operates to repeal all former acts dealing with the same subject. Orange City Water Company v. Town of Orange City, 255 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1971).
Accordingly, the ordei of the trial judge dismissing the complaint herein with prejudice is
AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Bernadette Ingraham, 428 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ision or general restatement of an area of the law constitutes an implied repeal of earlier acts on the same topic unless a contrary intent is clearly shown. Orange City Water Co. v. Town of Orange City, 255 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1971); Zedalis v. Foster, 343 So. 2d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1973) was a complete overhaul of the area of sovereign immunity. Section 768.28(10), by specifically providing that laws allowing the state to purchase insurance were still in effect, evince…
-
State v. SCM Glidco Organics Corp. & Seminole Kraft Corp., 592 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 358 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Dade County School Board v. Ingraham, 428 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) approved Ingraham v. Dade County School Board, 450 So. 2d 847 (Fla.1984); Zedalis v. Foster, 343 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). We therefore hold that Section 823.01, Florida Statutes, has been superseded by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes insofar as any application of that section to air pollution is concerned. In addition to the violations of Section 82…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- Town OF Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Local 1866 OF the Int'l Ass'n OF Fire Fighters, 275 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1973)
- Gustav Kratz & Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Newsom, 255 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1971)
- Orange City Water Co. v. Town OF Orange City, 255 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1971)