Johnson v. State
Citations
- 81 Fla. 783
- 89 So. 114
Syllabus
<p>1. The Eighteenth Amendment, being the paramount law of the United States and of the States, on the subjects covered by it, supersedes or restrains the operation of all provisions of the Federal Constitution and of the amendments thereto, in so far as such provisions are in conflict with the commands of the latest amendment. All State laws, whether organic or statutory, that conflict with the Eighteenth Amendment are thereby rendered unenforceable.</p> <p>2. Neither the Congress nor a State can confer a right that violates the commands of the Eighteenth Amendment. But the Congress and the several States have express “concurrent power to enforce” the amendment “by appropriate legislation.”</p> <p>3. In so far as State laws are appropriate to enforce the prohibitions contained in the Eighteenth Amendment, they may be valid, though they differ from Federal enforcement laws as to procedure or penalties, for in enforcing the organic prohibitions the State and Federal powers are concurrent.</p> <p>4. In the absence of an. organic definition Congress has implied power to define the subject of a Federal organic prohibition or regulation; and the definition of “intoxicating liquors” enacted by Congress is dominant to make the prohibition of the Eighteenth Amendment uniformly effective wherever they are applicable.</p> <p>5. In enforcing the organic prohibitions the Congress and the States may enact statutory regulations and prohibitions of the possession of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes as a means to effectuate the main, purpose. But such statutory prohibitions'must conform to all applicable provisions of organic law.'</p> <p>6. The courts take judicial notice that whiskey is an intoxicating liquor, the possession of which is regulated by statute within organic limitations.</p> <p>7. Where an illegal sentence is rendered upon a plea of guilty, and the defendant seeks relief in habeas corpus proceedings, the petitioner may be remanded for a proper sentence, if
Judges: Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Haile v. GardnerSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-11-08· cited 53×
- Wright v. WorthSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-02-10· cited 24×
- Timmons v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1929-01-18· cited 19×
- Spooner v. CurtisSupreme Court of Florida· 1923-04-11· cited 13×
- State ex rel. Johnson v. QuiggSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-01-12· cited 8×
- State v. FaheyNew York Court of General Session of the Peace· 1924-02-05· cited 8×
- Maniscalco v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1929-09-25· cited 3×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Street v. Lincoln Safe Deposit Co.Supreme Court· 1920-11-08· cited 93×
- Frese v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1887-01-15· cited 25×
- Harris v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1918-04-08· cited 16×
- Pensacola Lodge No. 497 v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-12-13· cited 15×
- Prince v. MahinSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-02-28· cited 14×
- Ex parte SimmonsSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-05-05· cited 13×
- Caldwell v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1901-06-15· cited 11×
- Faison v. VestalSupreme Court of Florida· 1916-04-25· cited 9×
- Marasso v. Van PeltSupreme Court of Florida· 1919-04-19· cited 9×
- Douglass v. ShackelfordSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-04-19· cited 7×
- Nussbaumer v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1907-06-15· cited 5×
- Purcell v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-01-15· cited 2×
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.