Mugge v. Warnell Lumber & Veneer Co.
Citations
- 58 Fla. 318
Syllabus
<p>1. The rules used in construing statutes are in general applicable in construing constitutions.</p> <p>2. In construing and applying provisions of a constitution tbe leading purpose should be to ascertain and effectuate the intent and object designed to be accomplished.</p> <p>3. In determining the meaning of words in a constitution they should be taken not separately, but in conjunction with other words, and considered in the light of the purpose of the lawmakers as shown by the provisions as an entirety.</p> <p>4. When words may import different meanings they should have the meaning and effect designed to be given them as appears by a fair consideration of the whole context in view of the object intended to. be accomplished.</p> <p>5. When consideration is given to all the provisions on the subject it is apparent that the intent, purpose and policy of the constitution is to confer upon the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all civil cases that the Circuit Courts exercise original jurisdiction of and determine, and to vest in the Circuit Courts appellate jurisdiction in all civil cases that the county courts exercise original jurisdiction of and' determine.</p> <p>6. The words “originating” and “arising” as used in the sections of the constitution relating to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and of the Circuit Courts refer to all cases which the Circuit and County Courts respectively exercise original jurisdiction of and determine.</p> <p>7. Where a County Court is established by the legislature in a county, it has original jurisdiction over all such causes as are assigned to its jurisdiction by the constitution whether such causes have already been instituted in the Circuit Court or not. And where cases over which such County Court has exclusive original jurisdiction have already, before the establishment of such County Court, been instituted in the Circuit Court, such Circuit Court, immediately upon the establishment of the County Court, c
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding parent corporation may interfere with the contractual relations of wholly- 2 112 S.W.3d 135, 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003
- relying on Forrester v. Stockstill, 869 S.W.2d 328, 333-34 (Tenn.1994) and holding that Tennessee courts recognize a privilege against tortious interference in contractual relationships “when there is unity of interest between the interfering party and the breaching party”
- what constitutes “wrongful means” in this context generally includes acts which are wrongful in and of themselves such as fraud, “misrepresentations of fact,” threats, violence, intimidation, etc.
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.