McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Bd., 125 So. 704 (Fla. 1927). · Go Syfert
Search
McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Bd., 125 So. 704 (Fla. 1927). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tropical Park, Inc. v. DEPT. OF BUS. REG. (fladistctapp, 1983-07-05) · Strongest negative: Head v. Platte County, Mo. (kan, 1988-01-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1930 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1930 1978 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" Head v. Platte County, Mo. (2×)
Kan. · 1988 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Bd., 97 Fla. 749 , 122 So. 239, 249 (1929) (state veterinarian is a public official).
cited Cited "but see" State Ex Rel. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hon. Carl R. Gaertner
Mo. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Bd., 97 Fla. 749 , 122 So. 239, 249 (1929) (state veterinarian is a public official).
cited Cited "see" Tropical Park, Inc. v. DEPT. OF BUS. REG.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Board of Florida, 97 Fla. 749 , 122 So. 239 (1929).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Hon
Tenn. · 1962 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also McSween et al. v. State Live Stock Sanitary Board of Florida et al., 97 Fla. 749 , 122 So. 239, 248-249 , 65 A.L.R. 508 , wherein the Supreme Court of Florida said: “It is unnecessary to pass upon the further contentions made in the bill to the effect that tick-eradication work in zone 14, the quarantine of said zone, and the rules and regulations adopted by the board for carrying on said work, is contrary to law and are unauthorized, void, and invalid, for the reason that systematic tick-eradication work and dipping cattle to that end in zones 14 and 16, including the territory spe…
J. C. McSween, Et Al., Appellants,
v.
State Live Stock Sanitary Board, Et Al., Appellees
Supreme Court of Florida.
Apr 18, 1927.
125 So. 704
W. W. Flournoy, for Appellants; D. Stuart Gillis, for Appellees.
Ellis, Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Brown, Buford.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Complainants allege that they are the owners of in excess of 75% of all the cattle within zone No. 14 under Chap. 9201, Acts of 1923; that said Chapter and portions thereof are invalid and that action taken thereunder by the State Live Stock Sanitary Board with reference to zone No. 14 is illegal. It is prayed that the Board be enjoined from enforcing any of the rules and regulations or provisions of Chapter 9201 in any part of zone No. 14, &c. The court denied a temporary injunction and complainants appealed. As the complainants do not allege that they own or control all the cattle in zone No. 14, the prayer for injunction is broader than complainants’ right and was properly denied.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, and Brown, J. J., concur. Buford, J., disqualified.