Sunshine Const. of Key West v. Board of Com'rs

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Clay County Development Authority

    140 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1962)   Cited 20 times
    In State v. Clay County Development Authority, 140 So.2d 576 (1962), the court reaffirmed the ruling in State v. Town of Miami by invalidating a proposed issue of revenue bonds under legislative authority.

    e cases supports the conclusion which we reach that the certificates proposed to be issued for the construction of the proposed project are condemned by Article IX, Section 10, of the Constitution and that the decree of the trial court must be and the same is hereby, Among others, the following cases are relied on by the Authority: Bailey v. City of Tampa, 92 Fla. 1030, 111 So. 119; Brautigam v. White, Fla. 1953, 64 So.2d 781; City of Jacksonville v. Savannah Machine Foundry Co., Fla. 1950, 47 So.2d 634; Kathleen Citrus Land Co. v. City of Lakeland, 124 Fla. 659, 169 So. 356; Leon County v. State, 122 Fla. 505, 165 So. 666; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Peters, Fla. 1949, 43 So.2d 448; State v. Board of Control, Fla. 1953, 66 So.2d 209; State v. City of Miami, Fla. 1954, 76 So.2d 294; State v. Dade County, Fla. 1953, 62 So.2d 404; State v. Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities District, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 34; State v. Inter-American Center Authority, Fla. 1955, 84 So.2d 9; Sunshine Const. of Key West, Inc., v. Board of Commissioners, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 524. Reversed.

  2. Kearney v. County of St. Lucie

    126 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1961)   Cited 1 times

    See also Article I, Section 1.01(G) of the authorizing resolution which we think concludes the question. In Sunshine Const. of Key West v. Board of Commissioners of Monroe County, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 524, the test of certificates of indebtedness like those involved in this case is defined and we think the present ones meet that test. State v. Lafayette County, Fla. 1952, 55 So.2d 799; State v. St. Johns County, Fla. 1952, 60 So.2d 530; State v. Palm Beach County, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 607; State v. Santa Rosa County, Fla. 1958, 105 So.2d 365, and State v. Lee County, Fla. 1960, 121 So.2d 788.

  3. State v. County of Santa Rosa

    105 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1958)   Cited 5 times

    State v. St. Johns County, Fla., 60 So.2d 530. This court has consistently held that court houses and jails are essential to the existence of county government and do not have to be approved by a vote of the freeholders as required by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution. Tapers v. Richard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39; Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So.2d 799; Sunshine Construction Co. of Key West v. Board of Commissioners, Monroe County, Fla., 54 So.2d 524; State v. Lafayette County, Fla., 55 So.2d 799; State v. Sumter County, Fla., 60 So.2d 529; State v. County of Dade, Fla., 92 So.2d 186; State v. Florida State Imp. Comm., Fla., 60 So.2d 747; Yon v. Orange County, Fla., 43 So.2d 177; State v. County of Manatee, Fla., 93 So.2d 381. The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

  4. State v. County of Palm Beach

    89 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1956)   Cited 11 times

    Authorization to issue bonds supported by the tax has come about entirely by judicial decree. Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So.2d 799; Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39. But see Leon County v. State, 122 Fla. 505, 165 So. 666, and Sunshine Const. of Key West, Inc. v. Board of Com'rs, Monroe County, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 524. Conceivably when the people approved the 1930 constitutional amendment they might well have recognized this exceptional status which our statutes had accorded to courthouses and jails for over forty-seven years. At any rate the concept is now so thoroughly grounded in our law that its rejection would not appear justifiable.

  5. State v. St. Johns County

    60 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1952)   Cited 4 times

    The County was also authorized to pledge its Race Track Funds for the payment of such certificates. In construing Section 135.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which is a general statute authorizing counties to levy a tax of five mills for fifteen years to pay for the construction or repair of a county courthouse or jail, this court said in Sunshine Const. of Key West, Inc. v. Board of County Com'rs, Monroe County, Fla., 54 So.2d 524, 525: "There is ample authority in the opinions of this court for the issuance of certificates of indebtedness to finance the construction of a jail, Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39, 41, and a courthouse, Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So.2d 799, in anticipation of the five-mill levy instead of waiting until the accumulated taxes levied and collected under 135.01 are sufficient for those purposes." That certificates may be issued for such purposes without the approving vote of the freeholders is also settled.

  6. Continental Casualty Co. v. City of Ocala

    111 Fla. 209 (Fla. 1933)   Cited 1 times

    "It has also been held that 'to justify the reformation of a deed for mistake, the mistake must have been mutual or else the result of fraud on the part of the party not mistaken, the evidence must be clear, satisfactory, and free from reasonable doubt, and the party seeking reformation must be free from negligence.' Payne v. Knight, 130 Iowa 113, 106 N.W. Rep. 505. Also see Persinger's Adm'r. v. Chapman, 93 Va. 349, 25 S.E. Rep. 5, wherein it was said: 'Equity will not extend its aid to one who has been guilty of culpable negligence. It requires that the party who asks relief on the ground of mutual mistake shall have exercised at least the degree of diligence which may be fairly expected from a reasonable person." See also Class v. Craig, 83 Fla. 408, 418, 91 So.2d 332; Greil v. Tillis, 170 Ala. 391, 54 So.2d 524; and Grieve v. Grieve, 89 P. 569, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1211. However, we do not feel called upon to decide this question.

  7. Sarasota Herald-Tribune v. Sarasota

    632 So. 2d 606 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 7 times

    Id., at 608. In Sunshine Construction of Key West, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners, Monroe County, 54 So.2d 524 (Fla. 1951), the supreme court was required to determine whether a legal notice appearing once a week in a newspaper published six days a week was sufficient notice under section 49.01, Florida Statutes (1949), the predecessor to section 50.011. The court held that there was "no injunction in the law to put the notice in each issue and so to hold would be to supply something not required or, we think intended."