WILLIAM F. RONALD, ET AL.,
v.
M. H. RYAN, ET AL.
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 challenged Act is constitutional and valid.
Relators, Drainage District Supervisors and landowners, challenged a Special Act of 1945. They contended the Act was unconstitutional as it prevented …
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 Petition For Declaratory Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This suit was instituted in the court below by petition for Declaratory Judgment.
The relators were The Halifax Drainage District of Volusia County, Florida, and the duly elected and qualified Supervisors of Halifax Drainage District together with certain landowners in the District.
*471The petition challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 22968, Special Acts of 1945. No attack is made challenging legislative procedure by which the Act was passed.
The contention presented is that the Act is unconstitutional because it prevents the duly elected and qualified Supervisors of the Drainage District from completing their term of office and delegates the duties of such officers to the Board of County Commissioners of Volusia County and deprives the land-owners of the Drainage District of the right of local self-government. Drainage Districts are creatures of the legislature. The Halifax Drainage District was organized under the general Drainage District Law. Such districts are, in the broad sense, municipal organizations but they do not fall within the provisions of Section 8, Article VIII of our Constitution because that was intended to apply to such municipal corporations as cities and towns.
For a statute to be held unconstitutional it must be shown to be contrary to expressed or necessarily implied prohibitions found in the State or Federal Constitutions. See State v. Pearson, 153 Fla. 314, 14 So. (2nd) 565; Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305, 19 So. (2nd) 876, and cases there cited. The petition in these cases entirely fails to meet this rule.
The Declaratory Decree holding Chapter 22968 Special Acts of 1945 valid should be affirmed on authority of Landis v. Readon, et al., 114 Fla. 755, 154 So. 868; State v. Carlton, 103 Fla. 810, 138 So. 612; Amos v. Mathews 99 Fla. 1, 126 So. 308 and Garrett v. Whitehurst, 122 Fla. 484, 165 So. 691.
It is so ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Amos v. Knott, 99 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1930)
- Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1944)
- State v. Doyle E. Carlton, 103 Fla. 810 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Reardon, 114 Fla. 755 (Fla. 1934)
- Bigby v. Lykes Bros., Inc., 153 Fla. 313 (Fla. 1943)
- State of Fla. Ex rel. Cashie Lee Green v. Pearson, 153 Fla. 314 (Fla. 1943)
- State v. Whitehurst, 122 Fla. 484 (Fla. 1936)