Court Opinion

ID: 9762221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:17:01.944221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:32.021121
License: Public Domain

EAGER, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I do not believe that the legislative enactment (§ 71.610) providing that no such *607city license tax shall be imposed upon any “business avocation, pursuit or calling” unless it “is specially named as taxable in the charter of such municipal corporation” is complied with by a mere attempt to adopt by reference all statutory provisions applicable “to cities of the First, Second, Third, or Fourth Class, or of any population group, and which any such cities are now or may hereafter be permitted by law to license, tax or regulate.”
Certainly the use in § 71.610 of the words “specially named” must indicate some significant legislative intent; to me they do not signify that the charter may include a blanket incorporation by reference of all statutory authorizations. In fact, I do not believe that they permit any incorporation by reference, and I would hold invalid all the taxes sought to be imposed on Respondent, in view of the City’s obvious effort to circumvent the requirement of the statute.
Also, the attempt to include all future statutory changes, in my view, renders subsection (20) of Sec. 17 of the charter so vague as to make it wholly void.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.