GEORGE B. ATKINSON,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 court held that the 1943 statute did not repeal the 1868 statute by implication, as both statutes have distinct elements and spheres of operation.
Defendant was convicted under a 1941 statute prohibiting keeping a house of ill fame. The defendant argued this statute was repealed by a 1943 statute…
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 Repeal By Implication cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a conviction of crime denounced by Sec. 796.01, F.S. ’41, F.S.A., reading:
“Whoever keeps a house of ill fame, resorted to for the purpose of prostitution or lewdness, shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding one year.”
Among other questions raised it is claimed that this statute was repealed by Chapter 21664, Acts of 1943, Sec. 796.07, cumulative supplement to 1941 statutes. The latter statute provides that it shall be unlawful to':
“(2) (a) To keep, set up, maintain, or operate any place, structure, building or conveyance, for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or prostitution.”
The last statute also contained the usual clause of repealing all laws in conflict although there was no express reference to the former Act. In Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Hazel, 43 Fla. 263, 30 So. 272, we said:
“Repeals by implication are not favored, and in order that a court may declare that one statute repeals another by implication it must appear that there is a positive repugnancy between the two or that the last was clearly intended to prescribe the only rule which should govern the case provided for, or that it revises the subject matter of the former.”
. Also see Beasley v. Coleman, 136 Fla. 393, 180 So. 625; In re Wade v. Janney, 150 Fla. 440, 7 So. (2nd) 797.
The statute under which this conviction was had has been a part of our statute law since 1868 and we have stated the elements of the offense denounced. See Campbell v. State, 149 Fla. 701, 6 So. (2nd) 828. One of the elements is the ill *451fame of the place in question. A casual reference to the 1943 statute reveals that this element is not essential for a conviction under the 1943 Act. It appears to us that both statutes have a sphere of operation and there is no conflict or repugnancy in them.
All other questions have been duly considered and found without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flo-Sun, Inc. v. Kirk, 783 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 2001)…uent statute has impliedly repealed one previously enacted, there should appear either a positive repugnancy between the two statutes or a clear legislative intent that the later act prescribes the only [*1036] governing rule. See Atkinson v. State, 156 Fla. 449, 23 So. 2d 524 (1945). With those standards in mind, we consider whether there is sufficient basis to determine that chapter 403 was impliedly intended to eliminate a public nuisance cause of action authorized under chapter 823, at least when the a…
-
Carlson v. State, 405 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1981)…e a bond validation or the imposition of a death sentence. See Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (2), Fla. Const. . See Note, Racketeers and Non-Racketeers Alike Should Fear Florida’s RICO Act, 6 Fla.St. U.L.Rev. 483 (1978). .The state, citing Atkinson v. State, 156 Fla. 449, 23 So. 2d 524 (1945), argues that since a violation of section 796.01 requires proof of a fact which section 796.07(2)(a) does not — the ill fame of the place in question — these statutory proscriptions are not the “same” offense for double jeopard…
-
State v. Warren, 558 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…*57] prostitution were both misdemeanors, although the element of ill fame resulted in a slightly increased penalty. Following this statutory addition, the supreme court again affirmed a conviction for keeping a house of ill fame. Atkinson v. State, 156 Fla. 449, 23 So. 2d 524 (Fla.1945). In Atkinson, the court held that the legislature did not impliedly repeal the ill fame statute when it enacted the lesser included offense of maintaining a place of lewdness or prostitution. In support of its holding, the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Hazel, 43 Fla. 263 (Fla. 1901)
- Beasley v. Coleman, 136 Fla. 393 (Fla. 1938)
- In re Wade v. Bess Wells Janney, 150 Fla. 440 (Fla. 1942)