Davis v. Florida Power Co.
Citations
- 64 Fla. 246
Syllabus
<p>1. Where it is apparent that substantive portions of a statute have been omitted and repealed by the process of revision and re-enactment, courts have no express or implied authority t® supply the omissions that are material and substantive and not merely clerical and inconsequential, for that would in effect he the enactment of substantive law. The statute in such a case should he effectuated as the language actually contained in the latest enactment warrants; and words that were a part of the omitted substantive provisions, but are useless as re-enacted may be disregarded as mere surplusage, and appropriate effect should be given to the connected and complete terms and provisions as they appear in the re-enacted statute, when it can be done without violating the organic law or the legislative intent.</p> <p>2. In determining the legality and effect of a statutory regulation, the court should ascertain the legislative intent; and if the ascertained intent will-permit, the enactment should be construed and effectuated so as to make it conform to rather than violate applicable provisions and principles of the State and Federal Constitutions, since it must be assumed that the legislature intended the enactment to comport with the fundamental law.</p> <p>3 The discretion of the legislature when exercised for the public welfare in selecting the subjects of police regulations and in determining the nature and extent of such regulations, is limited only by the requirements of the fundamental law that the regulations shall not invade private rights secured by the constitution, and shall not be merely arbitrary in applying to some persons and not to others similarly conditioned.</p> <p>4. Where a statute does not violate the Federal or State constitution, the legislative will is supreme, and its policy is not subject to review by the courts, whose province is not to regulate, but to effectuate the policy of the law as expressed in valid statutes.</p> <p>5. The right to e
Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Everton v. WillardSupreme Court of Florida· 1985-04-04· cited 171×
- Lainhart v. CattsSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-03-29· cited 129×
- Van Pelt v. HilliardSupreme Court of Florida· 1918-03-08· cited 126×
- City of Jacksonville v. BowdenSupreme Court of Florida· 1914-03-10· cited 67×
- Dutton Phosphate Co. v. PriestSupreme Court of Florida· 1914-04-21· cited 67×
- Georgia Southern & Florida Ry. Co. v. SEVEN-UP BOTT. CO. SE GEORGIASupreme Court of Florida· 1965-05-12· cited 59×
- Newman v. CarsonSupreme Court of Florida· 1973-07-11· cited 53×
- JORDAN CHAPEL FREEWILL BAPTIST CH. v. Dade CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1976-06-22· cited 35×
- Bannerman v. CattsSupreme Court of Florida· 1920-07-03· cited 35×
- Everglades Sugar & Land Co. v. BryanSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-02-02· cited 31×
- C. W. Latimer, Jr. v. Sears Roebuck and CompanyFifth Circuit· 1960-11-29· cited 25×
- Noble v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1914-06-17· cited 24×
- Adams v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Florida· 1919-08-18· cited 22×
- Pacheco v. PachecoSupreme Court of Florida· 1971-04-07· cited 18×
- State ex rel. Buford v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Florida· 1923-04-28· cited 16×
- Fountainview Association, Inc. v. BellDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1967-10-17· cited 13×
- Haber v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1981-02-26· cited 13×
- DeVane v. BaumanSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-11-05· cited 12×
- Greater Miami Financial Corporation v. DickinsonSupreme Court of Florida· 1968-09-11· cited 10×
- Langford v. OdomSupreme Court of Florida· 1919-03-22· cited 10×
Cites
24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court· 1911-03-20· cited 1,717×
- Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad v. TurnipseedSupreme Court· 1910-12-19· cited 426×
- Hammond Packing Co. v. ArkansasSupreme Court· 1909-02-23· cited 410×
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGuireSupreme Court· 1911-02-20· cited 388×
- State v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-06-15· cited 175×
- Tinsley v. AndersonSupreme Court· 1898-05-31· cited 143×
- Mutual Loan Co. v. MartellSupreme Court· 1911-12-11· cited 133×
- Red \C\ Oil Manufacturing Co. v. Board of AgricultureSupreme Court· 1912-01-09· cited 117×
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. ArkansasSupreme Court· 1911-02-20· cited 108×
- Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union County Nat. Bank of LibertySupreme Court· 1907-12-02· cited 105×
- The Abby DodgeSupreme Court· 1912-02-19· cited 90×
- Harper v. GallowaySupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 75×
- Hayes v. WalkerSupreme Court of Florida· 1907-06-15· cited 57×
- Warfield v. HepburnSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-06-15· cited 54×
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. SimonSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-06-15· cited 40×
- Finley v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1911-11-06· cited 36×
- State v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Co.Tennessee Supreme Court· 1910-12-15· cited 32×
- Peninsular Industrial Insurance v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-01-15· cited 31×
- Goldstein v. MaloneySupreme Court of Florida· 1911-06-15· cited 23×
- Taylor v. Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co.Supreme Court of Florida· 1911-01-15· cited 17×
Other cases named Davis v. Florida Power Co.
2 other CourtListener records share this case name.
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.