EUGENE KNIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION FOR THE COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLEE
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.
A Florida taxpayer challenged a 1931 state law that prevented certain county school boards from employing separate attorneys as violating the state constitution's prohibition on special or local laws. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the act unconstitutional because it was a special law regulating the duties of county officers in violation of the Florida Constitution.
The court held the act unconstitutional and inoperative. The act violated Article III, Section 20 of the Florida Constitution, which forbids special or local laws regulating the duties of a class of county officers. The classification of counties by population was arbitrary and unreasonable, and the act lacked proper notice as required by the Constitution.
“The title of the Act shows that its only purpose is to regulate the duties of a class of county officers which section 20, Article III of the constitution forbids to be done by a special or local law.”
Establishes the primary constitutional violation—that the act regulates officer duties through prohibited special legislation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEugene Knight, a resident taxpayer, brought proceedings to enjoin the Board of Public Instruction for Hillsborough County from paying compensation to …
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.
— In proceedings brought by a resident taxpayer to enjoin the payment of compensation to attorneys employed by the Board as being a violation of Chapter 14652, Acts of 1931, the Circuit Court .held the act to be “unconstitutional upon one or more of the grounds raised by the demurrers incorporated in the answers” and dismissed the bill of complaint. The complainant appealed.
*923The title of the act is:
“AN ACT Preventing the Board of Public Instruction of Each and Every County in the State of Florida Hjaving a Population of Not Less Than 143,000 and Not More Than 154,000 According to the Last Preceding State or Federal Census, from Employing and Paying a Separate Attorney for said Board and Devolving the Duties Heretofore Performed by the Attorneys of Said Boards in Said Counties Upon the Attorneys Representing the Boards of the County Commissioners in said Counties.”
Section 1 of the Act conforms to the title while sections 2 and 3 apply to all the counties of the State, which latter sections are broader than the subject expressed in the title. Ex parte Knight, 52 Fla. 144, 41 So. 786.
The title of the Act shows that its only purpose is to regulate the duties of a class of county officers which section 20, Article III of the constitution forbids to be done by a special or local law. Such regulation of the duties of a class of officers is not merely incidental to another and different subject of legislation as in Kroegel v. Whyte, 62 Fla. 527, 56 So. 498; Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47; Berry v. Hardee, 83 Fla. 531, 91 So. 685; Apgar v. Wilkinson, 95 Fla. 457, 116 So. 78; Jackson Lumber Co. v. Walton Co., 95 Fla. 632, 116 So. 771; State ex rel. v. Tyler, 95 Fla. 811, 116 So. 760; State ex rel. v. Daniel, 87 Fla. 270, 99 So. 804; State ex rel. v. Fearnside, 87 Fla. 34, 100 So. 256.
Even though when the bill was introduced into the legislature the provisions of its title and those in the body of the Act were of uniform operation throughout the State, the bill as enacted and authenticated, is by its title and its first section expressly limited in its operation to counties “having a population of not less than 143,000 and not more than 154,000, according to the last preceding State or Federal census.” This classification of counties when enacted embraced only one county, and ■though the reference to the census is progressive so that *924the Act might possibly apply to other comities in the future, yet the classification is not of all of the counties for a permissible subject of legislation, by classification, and as applied to the subject here regulated and the object designed, the classification as adopted is arbitrary and unreasonable, in addition to being contrary to the intendments of section 20, Article III, and the policy of section 1, Article XII of the constitution. The Act is therefore a special or local law, notice of the introduction of which was not published as required by amended section 21, Article III, constitution, and the subject of which is forbidden to be enacted in a local or special law by section 20, Article III, constitution. See Anderson v. Board, decided August 3, 1931, 136 So. 334; Jordan v. State, 100 Fla. 494, 129 So. 747; Stripling v. Thomas, 101 Fla. 1015, 132 So. 824; Whitney v. Hillsborough County et al., 99 Fla. 628, 127 So. 486.
The entire Act is therefore inoperative.
Affirmed.
Terrell and Davís, J.J., concur.
Buford, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
State v. Harris, 120 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1934)…s Bank & Trust Co. v. Mabry, 102 Fla. 1084, 136 So. 714), or one that purports to operate upon classified persons or things when classification is not permissible or the classification adopted is illegal’ (Knight v. Board Public Inst., 102 Fla. 922, 136 So. 631); a local law is one relating to, or designed to operate only in, a-specifically indicated part of the State (State ex rel. v. Crandon, 105 Fla. 309, 141 So. 177), or one-that purports to operate within classified territory when classification is no…1 / 2
-
Basil J. Walker v. Pendarvis, 132 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1961)…upheld.’ Crandon v. Hazlett, 157 Fla. 574, 26 So. 2d 638, 645; compare Manatee County v. Davidson, 132 Fla.295, 181 So. 889; Sivort Co. v. State, 136 Fla. 179, 186 So. 671; Knight v. Board of Public Instruction for Hillsborough County, 102 Fla. 922, 136 So. 631.” We next turn to points raised by the appellants in this appeal relating specifically to those laws declared legally effective and as meeting the requirements of Article III, Sections 20 and 21 of the Constitution of the State of Florida. Chapter…
-
State v. Cone, 130 Fla. 158 (Fla. 1937)…etermining the compensation of county officers. This should be done by general law treating the whole subject matter. “In our view the decree of the chancellor was correct and is hereby affirmed. Knight v. Board of Public Instruction, 102 Fla. 922, 136 So. 631; State v. O’Quinn, 114 Fla. 222, 154 So. 166; Stribling v. Thomas, 101 Fla. 1015, 132 So. 824; Jordan v. State, 100 Fla. 494, 129 So. 747.” [*193] In the case of State, ex rel. Hunter, v. O’Quinn, 114 Fla. 222, 154 So. 166, we held a statute, author…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (17 total)
- Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1917)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. v. Daniel, 87 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1924)
- Anderson v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction for the Cnty. of Hillsborough, 102 Fla. 695 (Fla. 1931)
- Ex parte Knight, 52 Fla. 144 (Fla. 1906)
- Whitney v. Hillsborough Cnty., 99 Fla. 628 (Fla. 1930)
- Smith v. Dwyer, 127 So. 486 (La. Ct. App. 1930)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Rivers Buford v. Fearnside, 87 Fla. 349 (Fla. 1924)
- Sam'l D. Jordan v. State, 100 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1930)
- Jackson Lumber Co. v. Walton Cnty., 95 Fla. 632 (Fla. 1928)
- Sessions v. State, 132 So. 694 (Fla. 1931)