McCreary v. State, (1936)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 8
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Attorneys: J.W. Watson, Jr., Abe Aronovitz and W.W. Charles for Plaintiff in Error;
Hendricks Hendricks, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: May 22, 1936
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This writ of error brings before us for review a final order in habeas corpus proceedings discharging the petitioner from custody. The judgment of the Circuit Judge is affirmed upon authority of McCleod v. Chase, 96 Fla. 736 a, 116 So. 858 and Brown v. Watson, 116 Fla. 56 , 156 So. 327 ; there having been no evidence introduced before the municipal court, or before the Circuit Judge in the habeas corpus proceedings, showing, or tending to show that the ordinance in question had been violated by
Summary: This writ of error brings before us for review a final order in habeas corpus proceedings discharging the petitioner from custody. The judgment of the Circuit Judge is affirmed upon authority of McCleod v. Chase, 96 Fla. 736 a, 116 So. 858 and Brown v. Watson, 116 Fla. 56 , 156 So. 327 ; there having been no evidence introduced before the municipal court, or before the Circuit Judge in the habeas corpus proceedings, showing, or tending to show that the ordinance in question had been violated by t..
More
Where the constitutionality of the application of a particular statute or ordinance depends upon a consideration of the evidence I think habeas corpus may be employed as it was used in this case, not as a review of the sufficiency of the evidence qua
proof, but as a means of determining whether constitutional property rights are being adversely affected by the manner of enforcement of an ordinance as applied to the particular facts of the case before the court.
BUFORD, J., concurs.
Source: CourtListener
