holding that a statutory exemption for dentists in counties having a certain population according to the 1930 federal census was an unconstitutional special law because it could only apply to two counties
How later courts described this case
- holding that a statutory exemption for dentists in counties having a certain population according to the 1930 federal census was an unconstitutional special law because it could only apply to two counties
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Buford, J.
(dissenting). — I think Chapter 16972, Acts of 1935, is a valid local law as applied to Okeechobee County where intention of such enactment was advertised, as shown by the legislative journals. -
I do not think the Act as a local or special Act offends against the provisions of Section 20, Article III of the State Constitution. See Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735 , 75 Sou. 47 ; State v. Fearnside, 87 Fla. 349 , 100 Sou. 256 ; State v. Wheat, 103 Fla. 1 , 137 Sou. 277 ; Masters v. Duval County, 114 Fla. 205 , 154 Sou. 172 ; State v. Hand, 96 Fla. 799 , 119 Sou. 376 ; Jackson Lbr. Co. v. Walton County, 95 Fla. 632 , 116 Sou. 771 ; Carlton v. Constitution Indemnity Co., 117 Fla. 143 , 157 Sou. 431 ; State v. Holbrook, 129 Fla. 241 , 176 Sou. 99 ; State v. Garrett, 130 Fla. 413 , 178 Sou. 309 .
The provisions contained in Chapter 16972,
supra,
would have been valid, had they been originally written in Chapter 14708, Acts of 1931, and, therefore, I consider the attempted amendment of that Act by Chapter 16972 valid.
Whitfield, J., concurs.