State ex rel. Terry v. Vestel
Citations
- 81 Fla. 625
- 88 So. 477
Syllabus
<p>1. Tlie Legislature is accorded a wide latitude iu enactiug title? to Acts, and the subjects of legislation expressed in titles to Acts may be as broad or as restrictive as the Legislature desires, and when the title is not misleading and clearly violative of organic law, the Act will not be held inoperative in whole or in part because of an asserted defective title.</p> <p>2. Where an Act expresses a single subject, however broad or restrictive, and the Act contains provisions in accord with its title and also contains provisions that are not a part of or properly connected with the single subject that is expressed in the title, thereby making the title misleading, the provisions that are not a part of or properly connected with the subject expressed in the title, may be violative of the constitutional provisions that each law “shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title,” and for that reason such provisions may be inoperative.</p> <p>3. It is not necessary to detail in the title of an Act provisions contained in the Act that are a part of or are properly connected with the subject expressed in the title, and where the subject expressed in the title is by any reasonable intendment sufficiently broad for the provisions of the Act to be embraced therein or to be properly connected therewith, and the title is not misleading, such provisions will not'be held to be inoperative, as not being legally incorporated in the Act.</p> <p>i. While the title of an Act is by the Constitution required to briefly express the subject of the enactment, it need not state matters properly connected with such subject that are embraced in the body of the law; and the language used in expressing the subject of the enactment is within the legislative discretion.</p> <p>5. If the language of the title considered with reference to the legislative intent as shown by the purpose and object of the Act, may by any
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that we will not construe a statute in a manner leading to a foolish result when another alternative construction was more probably intended
- recognizing that we will not construe a statute in a manner leading to a foolish result when another alternative construction was more probably intended
- recognizing that we will not construe a statute in a manner leading to a foolish result when another alternative construction was more probably intended
- finding that subsection (b) was enacted to reduce postjudgment delays before the enactment of subsection (i)
- finding that subsection (b) was enacted to reduce post-judgment delays before the enactment of subsection (i)
- holding evidence was sufficient to support presumed finding that affidavit of relinquishment was voluntary
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.