# State Ex Rel. Landis v. Williams

> Supreme Court of Florida · November 15, 1933 · 112 Fla. 734

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3391264

## Case

- **Full name:** State Ex Rel. Cary D. Landis, Att’y Gen’l, v. Miller Williams, Et Al., Budget Com’rs, Palm Beach County
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** November 15, 1933
- **Citations:** 112 Fla. 734; 151 So. 284
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Davis
- **Judges:** Whitfield, Davis, Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford
- **Cited by:** 3 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/3391264

## Opinion text

Davis, C. J.
(concurring). — While I have some considerable doubt as to the validity of the Palm Beach County Budget Commission Act involved in this case, the rule of constitutional law is that, in case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favor of upholding the validity of the legislative Act. Courts have no power
per se
to declare Acts of the Legislature invalid merely because they may be considered unreasonable, absurd, unworkable, unpopular or nonsensical in their operation. On the contrary a State statute must be upheld unless it is shown
beyond every reasonable doubt
to be contrary to some express, or necessarily implied constitutional provision, and that to enforce it results in some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue that is made to rest upon the challenged Act. Williams v. Riley, 280 U. S. 78 , 74 L. Ed. 175 , 50 Sup. Ct. Rep. 63.
I therefore give the benefit of the doubt to the Act in question, and concur in Justice Whitfield’s opinion holding that it -has not been sufficiently shown to be unconstitutional upon the grounds presented in the attack upon it in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3391264. Public record. Not legal advice.