Henderson v. Antonacci (1952)

Courts should not voluntarily pass upon constitutional questions which are not raised by the pleadings.” Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So. 2d 5, 8 (Fla. 1952); see also State v. Turner, 224 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 1969) (“This Court has, on a number of occasions, held that it is not only unnecessary, but improper for a Court to pass upon the constitutionality statute is unconstitutional.

Accord: State v. Spino, 61 Wn.2d 246 , 377 P.2d 868 (1963); Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5, 8 (Fla. 1952); affirmed, Kelly v. Blackburn, 95 So.2d 260 (Fla. 1957); Mt.

Courts should not voluntarily pass upon constitutional questions which are not raised by the pleadings.” Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla.1952) (internal citations omitted).

Messer v. Jackson, 126 Fla. 678 , 171 So. 660, 662 (1936); Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla.1952).” (Answer Brief at p. 7).

Messer v. Jackson, 126 Fla. 678 , 171 So. 660, 662 (1936); *1191 Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1952)." (Answer Brief at p. 7).

See State v. Inter-American Center Authority, 84 So.2d 9, 17 (Fla. 1955); Smith v. Ervin, 64 So.2d 166, 171 (Fla. 1953); Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5, 8 (Fla. 1952); State ex rel.

See Henderson v. Antonacci, supra (because no rational basis supports the legislation); Pacesetter Homes, Inc. v. Village of South Holland, supra , (as unrelated to the maintenance of quiet and order); Boyer v. Ferguson, supra , (not uniformly applied throughout the state); People v. Abrahams, supra , (numerous exceptions to Sunday laws have destroyed reasonable relation between laws and their alleged purpose); Spartan's Indus., Inc. v. Oklahoma City, supra , (differentiatin…

See Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5, 8 (Fla.1952) ("Courts should not voluntarily pass upon constitutional questions which are not raised by the pleadings.”). 2 .

See Jackson v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 848 So.2d 1165, 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 (Fla.1952), for the proposition that when an amended statute is declared unconstitutional, the statute stands as it was prior to the amendment).

See Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1952) (holding that when amendment to statutes is declared unconstitutional, statutes as they existed before amendments become effective by operation of law).

See, e.g., Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5, 8 (Fla.1952) (“It is a well established principle that the courts will not declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional unless its constitutionality is challenged directly by one who demonstrates that he is, or assuredly will be, affected adversely by it.”).

See, e.g., Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5, 8 (Fla.1952) ("It is a well established principle that the courts will not declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional unless its constitutionality is challenged directly by one who demonstrates that he is, or assuredly will be, affected adversely by it.").

See Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1952).

See Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 (Fla.1952).

E.g., Greenway v. State, 413 So.2d 23 (Fla. 1982) (defendant may challenge only that portion of § 944.47, state prison equivalent of 951.22, prohibiting possession of particular contraband involved); Wells v. State, 402 So.2d 402 (Fla. 1981) (same); see generally Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1952); State ex rel.

See Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1952).

See Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 (Fla., 1952) and Rutledge v. Gaylord's, Inc., 213 S.E.2d 626 , 233 Ga. 694 (1975).

This Court has interpreted the Florida Constitution to require a "valid and substantial reason for classifications." Moore v. Thompson, 126 So.2d 543 at 548 (Fla. 1961); accord, Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 at 9 (Fla. 1952).

This court has interpreted the Florida Constitution to require a "valid and substantial reason for classifications." Moore v. Thompson, 126 So.2d 543 at 548 (Fla. 1961); accord, Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 at 9 (Fla. 1952).

See Henderson v. Antonacci, 62 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1952). [2] The point cannot present reversible error because the husband failed to raise the question in the trial court.

See Henderson v. Antonacci, Fla.1952. 62 So.2d 5 .

See Henderson, Sheriff, v. Antonacci, Fla., 62 So.2d 5 .