Lewis v. Mathis
Decision Date | 17 March 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 49398,49398 |
Citation | 345 So.2d 1066 |
Parties | Gerald A. LEWIS, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Judge Chas. C. MATHIS, Jr., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Bernard S. McLendon and William C. Sherrill, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., and Richard E. Gentry, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Joseph C. Jacobs and Robert J. Angerer, of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen, Tallahassee, for appellees.
This appeal comes to us directly from the Circuit Court, Second Judicial Circuit, and involves the constitutionality of Section 34.024, Florida Statutes (1975), and Chapter 75--280, Florida Laws (1975). The trial court expressly held the laws in question to be unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction. Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
Section 34.024, Florida Statutes (1975), states as follows:
'County court judges shall receive the following salaries, to be paid by the state:
'(1) In counties having a population of 40,000 or less according to the last decennial census $24,000.
'(2) In counties having a population of more than 40,000 according to the last decennial census $28,000.'
Chapter 75--280, Section 18, Laws of Florida (1975), the Appropriations Act of 1975, provided in part:
'The salaries of the following officers during the fiscal year 1975--76 shall be paid at the annual rate shown below.
'Judges--County Courts:
'Counties with 40,000 population or less $ 26,000.
'Counties over 40,000 $34,000.'
The appellees, several county judges, filed a complaint on November 20, 1975, seeking a declaration that the laws in question are invalid under the Florida and United States Constitutions because such laws created a disparity between the salaries of county judges in counties having a greater than 40,000 population and those in counties having less than 40,000 population.
The lower court in its final summary judgment held in part:
The Legislature has wide discretion in choosing a classification, and therefore the presumption is in favor of the validity of the statute. Hunter v. Flowers, 43 So.2d 435 (Fla.1949). When a classification of counties for governmental purposes based upon population or otherwise is made by the Legislature in the enactment of general laws for governmental purposes in regard to the counties classified, if any state of facts can reasonably be conceived that will sustain the classification attempted by the Legislature, the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted will be presumed by the courts. The deference due to the legislative judgment in the matter will be ovserved in all cases where the court cannot say on its judicial knowledge that the Legislature could not have had any reasonable ground for believing that there were public considerations justifying the particular classification and distinction made. Anderson v. Board of Public Instruction for Hillsborough County, 102 Fla. 695, 136 So. 334 (1931).
The impact the population of an area has on its social character has long been realized by the courts of this State. The courts have taken judicial notice of the fact that there is more rampant crime in metropolitan areas, Lightfoot v. State, 64 So.2d 261 (Fla.1952); that the larger the population the greater the responsibility of county officers, State v. Gray, 182 So. 620 (Fla.1938), and that densely populated areas have a higher divorce rate, In Re Rouse, 66 So.2d 42 (Fla.1953).
A legislative classification based upon population must have a reasonable basis for the classification to be held constitutional. State ex rel. Juvenal v. Neville, 123 Fla. 745, 167 So. 650 (1936); Levine v. Bailey, 124 Fla. 241, 168 So. 12 (1936); Waybright v. Duval County, 142 Fla. 875, 196 So. 430 (1940); Vance v. Ruppel, 215 So.2d 309 (Fla.1968). The classification based upon population must also be potentially applicable to other political subdivisions of the state with the same population. Ex parte Wells, 21 Fla. 280 (1885); Coral Gables v. Crandon, 157 Fla. 71, 25 So.2d 1 (1946); Sparkman v. County Budget Commission, 103 Fla. 242, 137 So. 809 (1931). There is a reasonable basis for the classification by population in the statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schreiner v. McKenzie Tank Lines & Risk Management Services, Inc.
...the two. No nexus has been shown in this case by the appellant, who bears the burden of clearly showing any discrimination. Lewis v. Mathis, 345 So.2d 1066 (Fla.1977). Similarly, the fourth source of state action, judicial state action, does not assist the appellant. Although the appellant ......
-
State, Dept. of Ins. v. Keys Title
...by the Legislature." See North Ridge General Hospital v. City of Oakland Park, 374 So.2d 461, 464 (Fla.1979), citing Lewis v. Mathis, 345 So.2d 1066, 1068 (Fla.1977); see also Gallagher v. Motors Insurance Corporation, 605 So.2d 62, 69 (Fla.1992)(holding that an equal protection challenge m......
-
North Ridge General Hospital, Inc. v. City of Oakland Park
...by the courts. The deference due to the legislative judgment in the matter will be observed in all cases where the Lewis v. Mathis, 345 So.2d 1066, 1068 (Fla.1977); accord, Yoo Kun Wha v. Kelly, 154 So.2d 161 (Fla.1963); Anderson v. Board of Public Instruction for Hillsborough County, 102 F......
-
Gluesenkamp v. State
...application some inequality results. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 474, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1156, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970); Lewis v. Mathis, 345 So.2d 1066 (Fla.1977). A regulation of economic matters embodying a classification based on practical convenience need not apply with mathematical ......