privileges and immunities clause in Florida

1992The Taxpayers' Privileges and Immunities challenge was properly rejected in light of the clear pronouncement in Western & Southern Life that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution is inapplicable to corporations such as the Taxpayers. 451 U.S. at 656 , 101 S.Ct. at 2077.

1983With regard to the constitutionality of homestead residency requirements, this Court, in Sparkman v. State, 58 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1952), struck down a one-year durational residency requirement.

1983Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 6-33 at 411 (1978): "If the privileges and immunities clause as currently construed does not precisely duplicate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, the major reasons are that the former does not protect aliens and corporations, and that non-residence and out-of-state citizenship have not in fact been deemed suspect classifications for equal protection purposes.” .Strauss, supra, 520 F.Supp. at 178 : It is not just the administrative interpretation implementing a three-week residence requirement that this court deems obnoxious; the requ

1982Bank v. Hahn, 197 Mo.App. 593 , 198 S.W. 489 ; Revere Copper Co. v. Dimock, 90 N.Y. 33 , or that it is a cause of action for which the state of the forum has not provided a court, Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 373 , 24 S.Ct. 92 , 48 L.Ed. 225 ; compare Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U.S. 411 , 40 S.Ct. 371 , 64 L.Ed. 638 , 10 A.L.R. 716 , unless it is compelled to do so by the privileges and immunities clause (Const. Amend. 14, § 1); compare Douglas v. New York, N.H. & HR.

1982Bank v. Hahn, 197 Mo.App. 593 , 198 S.W. 489 ; Revere Copper Co. v. Dimock, 90 N.Y. 33 , or that it is a cause of action for which the state of the forum has not provided a court, Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 373 , 24 S.Ct. 92 , 48 L.Ed. 225 ; compare Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U.S. 411 , 40 S.Ct. 371 , 64 L.Ed. 638 , 10 A.L.R. 716 , unless it is compelled to do so by the privileges and immunities clause (Const. Amend. 14, § 1); compare Douglas v. New York, N.H. & HR.

1982Co., 279 U.S. 377 , 49 S.Ct. 355 , 73 L.Ed. 747 , McKnett v. St.

1982Co., 279 U.S. 377 , 49 S.Ct. 355 , 73 L.Ed. 747 , McKnett v. St.

1982Bank v. Hahn, 197 Mo.App. 593 , 198 S.W. 489 ; Revere Copper Co. v. Dimock, 90 N.Y. 33 , or that it is a cause of action for which the state of the forum has not provided a court, Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 373 , 24 S.Ct. 92 , 48 L.Ed. 225 ; compare Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U.S. 411 , 40 S.Ct. 371 , 64 L.Ed. 638 , 10 A.L.R. 716 , unless it is compelled to do so by the privileges and immunities clause (Const. Amend. 14, § 1); compare Douglas v. New York, N.H. & HR.

1982Robert John Winicki petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to review the trial court’s order granting Respondent Mallard’s Motion to Stay “pending final disposition of both Osterndorf v. Turner, et al., [ 411 So.2d 330 ] Case No. 81-864, Fifth District Court of Appeal, 1 and Maguire v. Schultz, et al., Case No. 81-2447, Second District Court of Appeal.” By his complaint below Winicki seeks to have Section 196.031(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes (1981), [providing for a $25,000 increased homestead real property tax exemption for those persons who have resided in Florida for at least five

1982Bank v. Hahn, 197 Mo.App. 593 , 198 S.W. 489 ; Revere Copper Co. v. Dimock, 90 N.Y. 33 , or that it is a cause of action for which the state of the forum has not provided a court, Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 373 , 24 S.Ct. 92 , 48 L.Ed. 225 ; compare Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U.S. 411 , 40 S.Ct. 371 , 64 L.Ed. 638 , 10 A.L.R. 716 , unless it is compelled to do so by the privileges and immunities clause (Const. Amend. 14, § 1); compare Douglas v. New York, N.H. & HR.

1982Bank v. Hahn, 197 Mo.App. 593 , 198 S.W. 489 ; Revere Copper Co. v. Dimock, 90 N.Y. 33 , or that it is a cause of action for which the state of the forum has not provided a court, Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 373 , 24 S.Ct. 92 , 48 L.Ed. 225 ; compare Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U.S. 411 , 40 S.Ct. 371 , 64 L.Ed. 638 , 10 A.L.R. 716 , unless it is compelled to do so by the privileges and immunities clause (Const. Amend. 14, § 1); compare Douglas v. New York, N.H. & HR.

1981The Court held that the commuters income tax violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, noting "[t]he overwhelming fact, as the State concedes, is that the tax falls exclusively on the income of nonresidents; and it is not offset even approximately by other taxes imposed upon residents alone." Id. at 665 , 95 S.Ct. at 1197 . (footnote omitted).

1981The Court held that the commuters income tax violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, noting "[t]he overwhelming fact, as the State concedes, is that the tax falls exclusively on the income of nonresidents; and it is not offset even approximately by other taxes imposed upon residents alone." Id. at 665 , 95 S.Ct. at 1197 . (footnote omitted).

1970Stephens v. Stickel, supra, ( 146 Fla. 104 , 200 So. 396 (1941)), holds that, when the courts of this state are called upon to construe and apply the privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution, "The organic command that no law shall restrain or abridge the liberty of speech * * * does not by its terms or intendments contemplate that the exercise of such liberty * * * shall be superior to reasonable duly authorized regulations * * *." The court then held that the liberty of speech involved in distribution of religious literature to motorists at street intersections was s

1970Stephens v. Stickel, supra, ( 146 Fla. 104 , 200 So. 396 (1941)), holds that, when the courts of this state are called upon to construe and apply the privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution, "The organic command that no law shall restrain or abridge the liberty of speech * * * does not by its terms or intendments contemplate that the exercise of such liberty * * * shall be superior to reasonable duly authorized regulations * * *." The court then held that the liberty of speech involved in distribution of religious literature to motorists at street intersections was s

1968This is the plain holding of the U. S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. Mayfield, 340 U.S. 1 , 95 L.Ed. 3 (1950), where the court said a contrary result would constitute a violation of the privileges and immunities clause (article IV, section 2, U. S. constitution).

1968This is the plain holding of the U. S. Supreme Court in Missouri v. Mayfield, 340 U.S. 1 , 95 L.Ed. 3 (1950), where the court said a contrary result would constitute a violation of the privileges and immunities clause (article IV, section 2, U. S. constitution).

1958The Attorney General quotes liberally from the opinion in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Klaus, 145 App.Div. 798 , 130 N.Y.S. 713, 717 , decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, and italicizes a' statement in the opinion of that court that it was conceded in the brief "that the right of free ingress and egress was never intended to enable a citizen of the United States to interfere with the orderly administration of justice within the territorial boundaries of the state" and that a citizen when "within the boundaries of a state" is amenable to the constitution and

1958The Attorney General quotes liberally from the opinion in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Klaus, 145 App.Div. 798 , 130 N.Y.S. 713, 717 , decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, and italicizes a' statement in the opinion of that court that it was conceded in the brief "that the right of free ingress and egress was never intended to enable a citizen of the United States to interfere with the orderly administration of justice within the territorial boundaries of the state" and that a citizen when "within the boundaries of a state" is amenable to the constitution and

1953It does no violence to the privileges and immunities clause because it does not discriminate between non-residents but places them upon the same basis as residents." (Emphasis added.) The decision in Condon v. Snipes, 205 Miss. 306 , 38 So.2d 752 , cited by the lower court in its order upholding the statute, is highly pertinent and persuasive.

1953It does no violence to the privileges and immunities clause because it does not discriminate between non-residents but places them upon the same basis as residents." (Emphasis added.) The decision in Condon v. Snipes, 205 Miss. 306 , 38 So.2d 752 , cited by the lower court in its order upholding the statute, is highly pertinent and persuasive.

1940We are relieved of the necessity for any extended discussion because of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest and controlling authority in such questions, in the case of Hayman v. Galveston, 273 U. S. 414 , 47 S. Ct. 363 , 71 L.

1940We are relieved of the necessity for any extended discussion because of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest and controlling authority in such questions, in the case of Hayman v. Galveston, 273 U. S. 414 , 47 S. Ct. 363 , 71 L.