Court Opinion

ID: 9536635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:03:56.5363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:54.812542
License: Public Domain

TAYLOR, Chief Justice,
with whom SMITH, Justice, concurs
(concurring and dissenting).
I concur in the conclusion only. My concurrence is based solely upon the ground that the phrase “territory inhabited by deer” is so indefinite and uncertain as to render that portion of the act, in which it appears, unconstitutional.
I agree that dogs are property. Their value, in the absence of stipulation or evidence of a higher value, is nominal.
A distinction is to be drawn between the effect of statutes held unconstitutional because of a defect in form, and those held unconstitutional because of a want of power in the legislature to enact. McCormick v. Bounetheau, 139 Fla. 461, 190 So. 882. Here the defect is one of form, not of power. An officer who in good faith acts under authority of such a statute before it is held unconstitutional should not be held liable in damages. Cf. 43 Am.Jur., Public Officers, § 284 ; 22 Am.Jur., False Imprisonment, § 69. Here the provision in question attempts to grant immunity. Legislative grants of immunity to officers are generally upheld by the courts. Annotation 163 A.L.R. 1435.
As to other propositions announced in the opinion, I dissent.