State ex rel. Turner v. Hocker
Citations
- 36 Fla. 358
Syllabus
<p>Constitutional law — jouiinals of legislature as evidence-mandamus TO COMPEL EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION — TITLE OF LEGISLATIVE ACT — AMENDI:- G ACT BY TITLE — PASSAGE OF BILLS BY LEGISLATURE .</p> <p>1. Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the exercise by a court of jurisdiction that it clearly possesses where it refuses to act.</p> <p>2. Where an alternative writ of mandamus is granted against a Circuit Judge to compel the exercise of jurisdiction over causeépending in two counties recently annexed by legislative act to the judicial circuit presided over by him, and he bases his refusal to exercise such jurisdiction upon the unconstitutionality of the legislative act bringing said territory within his jurisdiction, alleging it to be unconstitutional because of the manner in which it was enacted by the Legislature, such issues can properly be raised and presented by demurrer to the alternative writ of mandamus.</p> <p>3. The Journals kept by the iwo Houses of the Legislature of their proceedings 'are public records of which the courts of the State will take judicial notice.</p> <p>4. Acts of the Legislature duly enrolled and signed by the officers of the two houses and filed in the office of the Secretary of State with the approval of lhe Governor thereon, are prima facie valid and authoritative laws, but the journals of the two houses that enacted them may be resorted to -to ascertain whether the mandatory requirements of the Gonstitution have been complied with by the Legislature in their enactment, and if such journals show explicitly, clearly and affirmatiyely that any essential constitutional requirement has not been complied with, or if they fail to show any essential step in the process of enactment that the Constitution expressly requires them to show, such for example, as the entry of the ayes and noes upon the final passage of any bill in either house, then such journals would prevail as evidence, and the enrolled bill, as evidence of law, would have t
Judges: Taylok
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Amos v. GunnSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-04-07· cited 91×
- State ex rel. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Board of EqualizersSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-11-20· cited 78×
- Amos v. MosleySupreme Court of Florida· 1917-12-20· cited 67×
- Hayes v. WalkerSupreme Court of Florida· 1907-06-15· cited 57×
- Butler v. SheriffSupreme Court of Florida· 1914-04-28· cited 49×
- State ex rel. Bonsteel v. AllenSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-02-10· cited 44×
- State ex rel. Andreu v. CanfieldSupreme Court of Florida· 1898-01-15· cited 40×
- Potter v. LainhartSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-06-15· cited 33×
- State ex rel. Church v. YeatsSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-12-14· cited 30×
- State ex rel. Terry v. VestelSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-04-25· cited 26×
- Bevin v. Commonwealth ex rel. BeshearMissouri Court of Appeals· 2018-12-13· cited 26×
- State v. BetheaSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-01-15· cited 21×
- State v. KaufmanSupreme Court of Florida· 1983-04-21· cited 20×
- County of Greenlee v. LaineArizona Supreme Court· 1919-04-17· cited 15×
- State ex rel. Burbridge v. CallSupreme Court of Florida· 1899-06-15· cited 14×
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. HilburnSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-07-09· cited 14×
- Todtenhausen v. Knox CountyTennessee Supreme Court· 1915-04-15· cited 14×
- Cox v. Stults Eagle Drug Co.Arizona Supreme Court· 1933-04-29· cited 13×
- State ex rel. Milton v. DickensonSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-06-15· cited 13×
- State v. J.R.M.Supreme Court of Florida· 1980-10-02· cited 11×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People ex rel. Drake v. MahaneyMichigan Supreme Court· 1865-10-28· cited 427×
- Board of Supervisors of Schuyler County v. People ex rel. Rock Island & Alton RailroadIllinois Supreme Court· 1860-11-15· cited 54×
- McCulloch v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1859-01-04· cited 44×
- Board of Supervisors v. HeenanSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1858-12-15· cited 38×
- Worthen v. BadgettSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1877-11-15· cited 25×
- State ex rel. Minnesota Railway Construction Co. v. City of HastingsSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1877-08-11· cited 24×
- State ex rel. Markens v. BrownSupreme Court of Florida· 1884-01-15· cited 23×
- Walker v. GriffithSupreme Court of Alabama· 1877-12-15· cited 23×
- Pack v. BartonMichigan Supreme Court· 1882-01-25· cited 15×
- English v. OliverSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1873-12-15· cited 13×
- Baum v. RaphaelCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-01· cited 10×
- Clinton Township v. DraperIndiana Supreme Court· 1860-06-04· cited 4×
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.