Hancock v. Board of Public Instruction of Charlotte County
Citation | 158 So.2d 519 |
Decision Date | 11 December 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 32702,32702 |
Parties | W. S. HANCOCK, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF CHARLOTTE COUNTY, Florida, and J. T. Manning, Chairman, L. A. Ainger, Richard D. Townsend, James A. McCullough and Harry, B. Curran, Jr., as members of the Board of Public Instruction, Charlotte County, Florida, Appellees. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
William Lamar Rose, Fort Myers, and J. Lewis Hall, of Hall, Hartwell & Hall, Tallahassee, for appellant.
LrRoy Hill, Punta Gorda, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for Charlotte County entered in a proceeding for declaratory relief filed on January 7, 1963, by the Board of Public Instruction of Charlotte County to determine the effect of a referendum held pursuant to amended Article XII of the Florida Constitution as adopted in 1962, F.S.A. providing:
'(1) The county superintendent of public instruction shall be appointed by the county board of public instruction in the counties of Alachua, Charlotte * * * wherein the proposition is affirmed by a majority vote of the qualified electors of any such county making the office of county superintendent of public instruction appointive.' (Italics supplied.)
Appellant, prior to this amendment, was elected to a term as superintendent running through January, 1965. Results of the election adopting the above amendment were certified on December 29th, 1962, following affirmative vote of 1917 out of the 3225 qualified electors casting ballots (1308 against), said 3225 electors constituting less than 50% of the registered voters qualified. After reciting abandonment of issue (1) below by respondent in his brief in the nisi prius court, that court construed the amendment above as terminating the appellant's incumbency and held:
We are of the opinion that the question raised in this case which was answered by the able Circuit Judge in paragraph 2 quoted above from his final order is the pivotal query involved and the correct answer to said question is dispositive of all others.
We have had little difficulty in determining that amended Article XII of the Florida Constitution as adopted in 1962 did not abolish the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction in Charlotte County upon an affirmative vote of the majority of the qualified electors of such county. We find no language in amended Article XII which specifically states or even suggests that 'the office of county superintendent of public instruction' was intended to be abolished. (Italics supplied.) On the contrary, the use of the words 'the office' in Section (1) of Amended Article XII is a recognition of the existence of such office and definitely presupposes the continuance thereof. This amendment provided only for a change in the method of selecting a Superintendent of Public Instruction in the several counties named therein in the event a majority of the qualified electors of any such county should vote affirmatively on the 'proposition.' Said amendment deals only with the office of the County Superintendent of Public Instruction--not with the present or any future incumbent as such.
The trial judge approached the critical question herein by reasoning correctly that amended Article XII is self-executing and that it is not subject to legislative implementation. He stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Closet Maid v. Sykes, 1D98-660.
...interpret statutes, but that power cannot be used as a license to assume the prerogative of the legislature. See Hancock v. Board of Public Instruction, 158 So.2d 519 (Fla.1963). Hence, we do not read into section 440.09(1)(b) a requirement that the industrial accident must account for more......
-
Hoffman v. Jones
...v. Matthews, 103 Fla. 301, 137 So. 815 (1931), State v. Herndon, 158 Fla. 115, 27 So.2d 833 (1946), Hancock v. Board of Public Instruction of Charlotte County, 158 So.2d 519 (Fla.1963), Holley v. Adams, 238 So.2d 401 (Fla.1970), State v. Barquet, 262 So.2d 431 In the case of Ponder v. Graha......
-
Dickinson v. Stone, 41377
...Inc. v. Southeastern Tel. Co., Fla., 170 So.2d 577; Aldrich v. Aldrich, Fla., 163 So.2d 276; Hancock v. Board of Public Instruction of Charlotte County, Fla., 158 So.2d 519; In re Investigation of Circuit Judge of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Fla., 93 So.2d 601; State v. City of Fort Pierce, ......
-
State ex rel. Reynolds v. Roan
...school board. In a case brought to this court soon after the adoption of the amendment in Charlotte County, Hancock v. Board of Public Instruction, Fla.1963, 158 So.2d 519, it was held that the incumbent was entitled to serve out the four-year term of office as Superintendent of Public Inst......