Gray v. Central Florida Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1932 |
| Citation | 104 Fla. 446,141 So. 604 |
| Parties | GRAY, Secretary of State v. CENTRAL FLORIDA LUMBER CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; E. C. Love, Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Petition denied.
For original opinion, see 140 So. 320.
COUNSEL Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Baker & Baker and Martin Sack, all of Jacksonville, for appellee.
All the questions raised in this petition for rehearing were fully covered in the main opinion except the first, which is, in effect, that chapter 14677, Acts of 1931, Laws of Florida, contravenes the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and sections 1 and 12 of the Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, because it required appellee to file annual reports, while corporations paying a filing fee of $1,000 are exempt from making any reports whatever.
In Assaria State Bank v. Dolley, 219 U.S. 121, 31 S.Ct. 189, 55 L.Ed. 123, the Supreme Court upheld a classification predicated solely on volume of surplus as required between incorporated and unincorporated banks. The same court has frequently upheld statutes directed at an evil as it actually exists in the contemplation of the Legislature, without attempting to cover the whole field of possible abuse. Patsone v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138, 34 S.Ct. 281, 58 L.Ed. 539; Keokee Consolidated Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U.S. 224, 34 S.Ct. 856, 58 L.Ed. 1288; Griffith v. State of Connecticut, 218 U.S. 563, 31 S.Ct. 132, 54 L.Ed. 1151.
It is also conclusively settled by frequent decisions of the same court that, subject to certain limitations as respects interstate and foreign commerce, a state may impose such conditions upon permitting a corporation to do business within its limits as it consider expedient, and that the condition may be made to depend on the payment of a designated license tax proportional to the amount of its capital used within the state. New York v. Roberts, 171 U.S. 658, 19 S.Ct. 58, 43 L.Ed. 323.
Petition for rehearing denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaulden v. Kirk
...141 So. 736; State ex rel. Howarth v. Jordan, 105 Fla. 322, 140 So. 908; Gray v. Central Florida Lumber Co., 104 Fla. 446, 140 So. 320, 141 So. 604; State ex rel. Gillespie v. Thursby, 104 Fla. 103, 139 So. 372, 140 So. 775; State v. Goodgame, 91 Fla. 871, 108 So. 836, 47 A.L.R. 118; State ......
-
State Ex Rel. Lane Drug Stores, Inc. v. Simpson
...plainly unequal, or contrary to common right, they will be upheld.' See Gray v. Central Fla. Lbr. Co., 104 Fla. 446, 140 So. 320, 325, 141 So. 604; State v. Allen, 83 Fla. 91 So. 104, 26 A.L.R. 735; Jackson v. Neff, 64 Fla. 326, 60 So. 350, writ of error dismissed in 238 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. ......
-
Department of Revenue v. Amrep Corp.
...DOR also alludes to the heavy burden resting upon one who asserts the unconstitutionality of a statutory scheme. Gray v. Central Florida Lumber Co., 104 Fla. 446, 147 So. 320, 141 So. 604 (1932). The pole star for judging the validity of a particular classification is whether that classific......
-
North Am. Co. v. Green
...business, not on the amount or value of capital invested in the business. Gray v. Central Florida Lumber Co., 104 Fla. 446, 140 So. 320, 141 So. 604; Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Amos, 104 Fla. 609, 621, 141 So. 153; People of State of New York v. Latrobe, 279 U.S. 421, 49 S.Ct. 377, 73 L.Ed. 77......