Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee
| Decision Date | 18 April 1933 |
| Citation | 147 So. 463,109 Fla. 477 |
| Parties | LOUIS K. LIGGETT COMPANY et al., Appellants v. J. M. LEE, as Comptroller of the State of Florida, R. H. Mickler, as Tax Collector of Leon County, Florida, et al., etc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; E. C. Love Judge.
Kay Adams, Ragland & Kurz, of Jacksonville, for appellants.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Agreeable to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States in this cause (see 53 S.Ct. 481, 77 L.Ed. 929) on this date received and filed, wherein and whereby it is recited that it has been ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the said United States Supreme Court that the decree of the Supreme Court of Florida [1] heretofore entered in this cause on the 4th day of April, A. D. 1932, be reversed with costs, and that this cause should be, and the same was thereby, remanded to this court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the said Supreme Court of the United States in the premises, in order that such execution and further proceedings may be had in this cause, in conformity with the judgment and decree of the Supreme Court of the United States in said mandate states as, according to right and justice and the Constitution and laws of the United States, ought to be had herein, the said appeal notwithstanding, it is now, upon consideration of said mandate, considered, ordered, and decreed by this court that the judgment of affirmance herein entered on the 4th day of April, A. D. 1932, be, and the same is hereby, annulled and set aside, and this cause restored to the docket of this court on the appeal taken from the circuit court in the premises, and that a convenient date for the reargument of this cause be set by the clerk and notices thereof mailed to counsel for the respective parties, and that such reconsideration of said appeal be had by this court, and such further judgment and decree entered herein as may not be inconsistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, and as according to right and justice, and the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of Florida, ought to be had and done herein, the previous judgment of this court on said appeal notwithstanding. of this court on said appeal notwithstanding.
Judgment of April 4, 1932, annulled and set aside pursuant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tornillo v. Miami Herald Pub. Co.
...clause. State ex rel. Boyd v. Deal, 24 Fla. 293, 4 So. 899 (1888); Gwynn v. hardee, 92 Fla. 543, 110 So. 343 (1926); Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 109 Fla. 477, 147 So. 463, 149 So. 8 (1933); City of Daytona Beach v. Harvey, 48 So.2d 924 (Fla.1950); Youngblood v. Darby, 58 So.2d 315 (Fla.195......
-
Miami Laundry Co. v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd.
... ... of classification and is not deemed to be arbitrary or ... unreasonable. Liggett Co. v. Amos, 104 Fla. 609, 141 ... So. 153; Liggett Co. v. Lee, 109 Fla. 477, 147 So ... 463, 149 So. 8; State et al. v. Minge et al., 119 ... ...
-
Robinson v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd.
... ... counties of more than 17,500 population goes to the question ... of classification and is not deemed to be arbitrary or ... unreasonable. Liggett Co. v. Amos, 104 Fla. 609, 141 ... So. 153; Liggett Co. v. Lee, 109 Fla. 477, 147 So ... 463, 149 So. 8; State et al. v. Minge et al., 119 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Boyd v. Green
...by the Legislature. State ex rel. Lane Drugstores, Inc. v. Simpson, 122 Fla. 582, 166 So. 227 (1935), Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 109 Fla. 477, 147 So. 463 (1933). We hold that Section 10, which repeals Rule 3.210, is such an integral part of Section 1, that it cannot be severed from it. T......