DERAY DRIGGERS

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

Citator

Cited By

• Posner v. Sari Posner, 233 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1970)
  …state, it has frequently been said that in every divorce suit the state is a third party whose interests take precedence over the private interests of the spouses. See Underwood v. Underwood, 1868, 12 Fla. 434; Light v. Meginniss, 1945, 156 Fla. 61, 22 So. 2d 455; Pickston v. Dougherty, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 577; Wall v. Wall, Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d 288. The state’s interest in the preservation of the marriage is the basis for the rule that a divorce cannot be awarded by consent of the parties, see Und…
• The City OF ST. Petersburg v. Briley, 239 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1970)
  …eople at the time they adopted it in the General Election of 1968. We are obligated to give effect to this language according to its meaning and what the people must have understood it to mean when they approved it. Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 156 Fla. 48, 22 So. 2d 398 (1945); In Re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, Fla., 223 So. 2d 35 (1969). If the language is clear and not entirely unreasonable or illogical in its operation we have no power to go outside the bounds of the constitutional provision…
• Marsh v. Garwood, 65 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1953)
  …, and it must be assumed that the electors intended such meanings, and no others, when they adopted section 32, Article XVI, of the . Constitution. City of Jacksonville v. Continental Can Co., 113 Fla. 168, 151 So. 488; Advisory Opinion to Governor, 156 Fla. 48, 22 So. 2d 398. .Section 11 of Chapter 26843, the portion of the Law that is directly involved in this appeal, contains no indicatioh that probationary orders are contemplated. The use in the statute of the words, “conditional -or [*19] absolute di…