# State Ex Rel. Coleman v. York

> Supreme Court of Florida · July 18, 1939 · 139 Fla. 300

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3383459

## Case

- **Full name:** State Ex Rel. T. T. Coleman v. Fred M. York, Chairman; L. D. Pankey, Vice-Chairman; W. C. McLeod, A. B. Whitman and H. B. Pattishall, Secretary-Treasurer, as Members of the State Board of Dental Examiners
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** July 18, 1939
- **Citations:** 139 Fla. 300; 190 So. 599
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Buford
- **Judges:** Thomas, Terrell, Brown, Chapman, Whitfield, Buford
- **Cited by:** 10 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/3383459

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3383459. Public record. Not legal advice.