Stockton v. Powell
Citations
- 29 Fla. 1
Syllabus
<p>1. The purpose for which, under the act of June 11, 1891, entitled “An act to authorize Duval county to improve the navigation of the St. Johns river and to issue bonds in aid thereof,” the proceeds of the bonds are authorized to be applied, is, “the work of improving the navigation of the St. Johns river, and removing obstructions therefrom, within the county of Du-val.” This work is a county purpose, within the meaning of the provisions of Section 0, Article IX of the Constitution, that the Legislature shall authorize the several counties to assess and impose taxes for county purposes, although the river is a navigable stream and public highway and may run, from its mouth in the county, and hundreds of miles beyond the limits of the county and through other counties, and commerce is carried on as an entirety upon it from its mouth towards its source for the distance stated, and thence back, and a large portion of its commerce is to or from other States and foreign countries, and the commerce and business of the river confined within the limits of the county are yery small and of no importance. The statute is not in conflict with the constitutional provisio i designated.</p> <p>2. Commerce with foreign nations and among the States embraces not only subjects which are national iu their character and require, in ordi r to preclude discriminating regulations by the ; ■ States, uniformity of regulation affecting all the Stat-s, but also such matters within the purview of such commerce, as are local in their nature or operation, and can be properly regulated by provisions adapted to their particular circumstances. The power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States is exclusive only in so far as it relates to ihose subjects of such commerce that fall within the former or national class. As to this class the States have no power to act even in the absence of congressional regulation, but as to any subject within the other or local clas
Judges: Ranby
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Amos v. GunnSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-04-07· cited 91×
- Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals· 2008-12-16· cited 66×
- County Commissioners v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of Florida· 1895-06-15· cited 64×
- Hunter v. OwensSupreme Court of Florida· 1920-12-08· cited 54×
- Potter v. LainhartSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-06-15· cited 33×
- Leonard v. FranklinSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-08-19· cited 32×
- State ex rel. Buford v. FearnsideSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-04-05· cited 27×
- State ex rel. City of Memphis v. HackmanSupreme Court of Missouri· 1918-03-12· cited 26×
- Horton v. KyleSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-03-08· cited 22×
- Union Sulphur Co. v. Parish of CalcasieuSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1923-04-02· cited 20×
- State v. Jacksonville Port AuthoritySupreme Court of Florida· 1967-07-19· cited 19×
- Rushton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 18×
- Rushton v. State ex rel. CollinsSupreme Court of Florida· 1918-03-08· cited 18×
- State ex rel. Milton v. DickensonSupreme Court of Florida· 1902-06-15· cited 13×
- Daniel v. TaylorSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-01-15· cited 8×
- Vann v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1913-02-11· cited 7×
- Board of Supervisors v. Wayne Circuit JudgesMichigan Supreme Court· 1895-07-02· cited 7×
- Martin ex rel. Wanton v. TownsendSupreme Court of Florida· 1893-06-15· cited 6×
- Gilligan v. Special Road & Bridge District Number FourSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-11-15· cited 6×
- McKim v. BrastWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1923-05-29· cited 4×
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108Supreme Court· 1884-05-05· cited 543×
- WILLSON AND OTHERS v. the Black Bird Creek Marsh CompanySupreme Court· 1829-03-20· cited 294×
- Escanaba Co. v. ChicagoSupreme Court· 1883-03-18· cited 196×
- Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. HatchSupreme Court· 1888-03-19· cited 160×
- Huse v. GloverSupreme Court· 1886-12-20· cited 99×
- Pound v. TurckSupreme Court· 1878-01-18· cited 95×
- Cardwell v. American Bridge Co.Supreme Court· 1885-01-19· cited 90×
- Cotten v. County CommissionersSupreme Court of Florida· 1856-01-15· cited 56×
- Ex parte MirandeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1887-09-13· cited 43×
- Phelan v. PhelanSupreme Court of Florida· 1868-07-01· cited 37×
- Hamilton v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court· 1886-12-06· cited 35×
- Hasbrouck v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court· 1860-11-19· cited 35×
- Lusher v. ScitesWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1870-01-15· cited 27×
- De Camp v. EvelandNew York Supreme Court· 1854-12-04· cited 25×
- Board of Supervisors v. WeiderIllinois Supreme Court· 1872-09-15· cited 23×
- Wicks v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama· 1870-06-15· cited 20×
- Chestnutwood v. HoodIllinois Supreme Court· 1873-06-15· cited 19×
- Board of Supervisors v. People ex rel. Commissioners of HighwaysIllinois Supreme Court· 1884-05-19· cited 13×
- In re the Executive Communication filed the 17th Day of April, A. D. 1872Supreme Court of Florida· 1872-04-15· cited 11×
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.