Crawford v. Gilchrist
Citations
- 64 Fla. 41
Syllabus
<p>1. It is the duty of the court to facilitate and not to retard the determination of litigated causes.</p> <p>2. Where on application for a supersedeas order to suspend the operation of an injunction, the merits of the cause are fully argued, and the granting or refusal of a supersedeas will virtually dispose of the cause in which the people of the State are vitally interested, the court may, for the public welfare, consider the cause on its merits in adjudicating the application for a supersedeas, questions of law only being involved.</p> <p>3. A determination of whether an amendment to the constitution has been validly proposed and agreed to by the legislature, is to be had in a judicial forum where the constitution provides no other means for such determination.</p> <p>4. The act of the Secretary of State in publishing and certifying to the county commissioners proposed amendments to the constitution, is in its nature ministerial, involving the exercise of no discretion, and if the act is illegal it may be enjoined in appropriate proceedings by proper parties, there being no other adequate remedy afforded by law.</p> <p>5. Where an alleged illegal ministerial official act has relation to legislative action, such action may be considered by the courts in determining the validity or invalidity of the ministerial act. This is not an interference by the courts with the legislative department of the government.</p> <p>G. The Governor of the State suing as such and also as a citizen, taxpayer and elector is a proper complainant in proceedings brought to enjoin the Secretary of State from publishing at public expense and certifying proposed amendments to the constitution upon the ground that such proposed amendments are invalid because they have not been duly “Agreed to by three-fifths of all the inembers elected to each house” of the legislature.</p> <p>7. If essential mandatory provisions of the organic law are ignored in amending the constitution, it violates the r
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that a legislatively proposed amendment was invalid because it was not signed by the presiding officer of the House or Senate and was never intended to function as an amendment
- recognizing standing of Governor as citizen and elector, inter alia, in suit challenging proposed constitutional amendment
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
49 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Askew v. FirestoneSupreme Court of Florida· 1982-10-21· cited 128×
- Armstrong v. HarrisSupreme Court of Florida· 2000-09-07· cited 121×
- State Ex Rel. Dept. of General Serv. v. WillisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1977-03-29· cited 115×
- Amos v. GunnSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-04-07· cited 91×
- Butterworth v. CaggianoSupreme Court of Florida· 1992-07-09· cited 88×
- State ex rel. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Board of EqualizersSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-11-20· cited 78×
- City of Jacksonville v. BowdenSupreme Court of Florida· 1914-03-10· cited 67×
- Asplund v. HannettNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1926-08-16· cited 64×
- United States v. SmithSupreme Court· 1932-05-02· cited 62×
- Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General ex rel. Amendment to Bar Government from Treating People Differently Based on Race in Public EducationSupreme Court of Florida· 2000-07-13· cited 54×
- Rickman v. WhitehurstSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-01-31· cited 52×
- State ex rel. Linde v. HallNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1916-09-11· cited 34×
- Thomas v. State Ex Rel. CobbSupreme Court of Florida· 1952-03-28· cited 33×
- Power v. RobertsonMississippi Supreme Court· 1922-09-15· cited 31×
- Roeschlein v. ThomasIndiana Supreme Court· 1972-02-24· cited 30×
- Power v. RatliffMississippi Supreme Court· 1916-10-15· cited 29×
- Smathers v. SmithSupreme Court of Florida· 1976-10-11· cited 27×
- Moffitt v. WillisSupreme Court of Florida· 1984-10-18· cited 27×
- Des Moines Register & Tribune Co. v. DwyerSupreme Court of Iowa· 1996-01-17· cited 25×
- State Ex Rel. West v. GraySupreme Court of Florida· 1954-02-16· cited 25×
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Crampton v. ZabriskieSupreme Court· 1880-05-10· cited 186×
- Board of Liquidation v. McCombSupreme Court· 1876-04-10· cited 184×
- Kadderly v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court· 1903-12-21· cited 155×
- Livermore v. WaiteCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-03-29· cited 85×
- Commonwealth v. GriestSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1900-05-29· cited 70×
- State ex rel. Cranmer v. ThorsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1896-07-29· cited 45×
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Railroad CommissionersSupreme Court of Florida· 1912-01-15· cited 43×
- Whitney v. Common Council of HudsonMichigan Supreme Court· 1888-04-06· cited 30×
- Peck v. SpencerSupreme Court of Florida· 1890-01-15· cited 22×
- Stockdale v. School District No. TwoMichigan Supreme Court· 1881-10-27· cited 21×
- Lanier v. PadgettSupreme Court of Florida· 1882-01-15· cited 18×
- Forbes v. Board of HealthSupreme Court of Florida· 1891-06-15· cited 7×
- Lilienthal v. CampbellSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1870-12-15· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.