Case Name: CITY OF PENSACOLA, Appellant, v. Robert SHEVIN, etc. et al., Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-03-19
Citations: 396 So. 2d 179
Docket Number: No. 57030
Parties: CITY OF PENSACOLA, Appellant, v. Robert SHEVIN, etc. et al., Appellees.
Judges: ADKINS, OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 396
Pages: 179–181

Head Matter:
CITY OF PENSACOLA, Appellant, v. Robert SHEVIN, etc. et al., Appellees.
No. 57030.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 19, 1981.
John P. Kuder, Asst. City Atty., Pensacola, for appellant.
Louis K. Rosenbloum of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Rosenbloum & Magie, Pensacola, for appellees.

Opinion:
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before the Court on appeal from a judgment of the circuit court in Escambia County, upholding the constitutionality of chapter 76-468, Laws of Florida. We have jurisdiction under article V prior to its recent amendment. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.
Chapter 76-468 is a broad-ranging amendment of chapter 63-1775, Laws of Florida, a special law which created a civil service system for the City of Pensacola. It appears that various officials of the City and its civil service board suggested the legislation, and as House Bill 3930 it had a somewhat detailed title. As passed by the legislature, however, the act contained provisions not suggested by the local officials, and not specifically referred to in the title of the act. The City of'Pensacola then brought this declaratory judgment action against the attorney general and the members of the General Pension Board of the City of Pensacola, testing the constitutionality of the act under article III, section 6, Florida Constitution.
The title of chapter 76-468 begins, "An Act relating to the Pensacola Civil Service System; amending chapter 63-1775, Laws of Florida, as amended, . . ." Then the title proceeds to briefly describe the object of each section of the act except for two new paragraphs, section 29(A)(4) and (5), which pertain to the pension rights of city employees discharged for cause.
Article III, section 6, Florida Constitution, provides in part: "Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title." The City contends that paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 29(A) are unrelated to the subject of the act and thus constitute improper secondary subject matter and that, as a further deficiency, the title contains no expression of the subject of the two paragraphs.
The argument that the pension rights of City employees discharged by the Civil Service Board do not come within or properly connect with the subject of the act need not detain us long. We hold that the act embraces one subject only and that the disputed paragraphs are included in that subject or are properly connected with it.
In order to comply with the requirement that the subject of a law be briefly expressed in the title, the title need not be an index of all the features of the legislation. A general statement of the subject is all that is required; indeed, a brief, general statement is preferred over a detailed listing. Town of Monticello v. Finlayson, 156 Fla. 568, 23 So.2d 843 (1945). The title of chapter 76-468 might be said to go into unnecessary detail, as measured by the constitutional requirement, regarding most of the act's provisions. The fact that a somewhat detailed listing in a title is not complete, however, is of no consequence if the disputed sections relate to the general subject and the subject is expressed in the title. See, e. g., Spooner v. Askew, 345 So.2d 1055 (Fla.1977); King Kole, Inc. v. Bryant, 178 So.2d 2 (Fla.1965).
We hold that chapter 76-468 amending chapter 63-1775, is not unconstitutional by reason of any failure to comply with article III, section 6. The judgment is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, OVERTON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
SUNDBERG, C. J., dissents with an opinion.