# Dade County v. Kerce

> Supreme Court of Florida · October 5, 1938 · 137 Fla. 194

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3378549

## Case

- **Full name:** Dade County v. H. B. Kerce, and J. M. Lee, as Comptroller
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** October 5, 1938
- **Citations:** 137 Fla. 194; 188 So. 642; 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1708
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent
- **Judges:** Brown, Buford, Chapman, Ci-Iapman, Ellis, I-Concur, Terrell, Thomas, Whitfield
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3378549

## Opinion text

I am unable to concur in the conclusion reached in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice WHITFIELD for two reasons.
Chapter 17974 is, in my opinion, nothing more nor less than a local and special law applying, and intending to apply, only to Dade County.
In the enactment of this special and local statute, the *Page 216
provisions of Section 21, Article III of the Constitution was not complied with and, therefore, it never became a law. If we try to sustain the Act as a general law, we must find some basis in reason for the classification used. I am unable to find any basis in reason why such legislation should be confined to only that county having a population of more than 180,000.
The other reason is that the Act attempts to appropriate a State tax to the payment of outstanding County and District bonds. A State tax can not be appropriated for such purpose. See Amos v. Matthews, 99 Fla. 65 , 126 So. 308 .
Therefore, I think the order appealed from should be affirmed.
ELLIS, C.J., and BROWN, J., concur.
ON REHEARING En Banc.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3378549. Public record. Not legal advice.