Title: Pinellas County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Hillsborough County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Hillsborough County Water Conservation District, Appellees
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004428/00001
 Material Information
Title: Pinellas County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Hillsborough County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Hillsborough County Water Conservation District, Appellees
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Southern Reporter, 2d Series
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Pinellas County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Hillsborough County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Hillsborough County Water Conservation District, Appellees (JDV Box 86)
General Note: Box 22, Folder 2 ( Groundwater - Old Florida and California Cases - 1900's ), Item 14
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004428
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text



212 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES


PER CURIAM.


PINELLAS COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Florida, Appellant,
V.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, a political sub-
division of the State of Florida, and the
Hillsborough County Water Conservation
District, Appellees.
No. 36783.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 17, 1968.


Proceeding on appeal from a decision
of the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County,
I. C. Spoto, J. The Supreme Court held
that statute governing water conservation
district in counties of 260,000 or more in-
habitants was not repealed, either expressly
or impliedly, by statute creating geological
department of State Board of Conservation
or any later enactment.

Affirmed.


I. Waters and Water Courses =183/2

Official action taken in creating Hills-
borough County Water Conservation Dis-
trict or fixing its boundaries was not in-
valid or unsupported by substantial evi-
dence. Laws 1945, c. 22935; F.SA.
373.011 et seq.

2. Waters and Water Courses C=182
Statute governing water conservation
district in counties of 260,000 or more in-
habitants was not repealed, either expressly
or impliedly, by statute creating geological
department of State Board of Conservation
or any later enactment. Laws 1945, c.
22935; F.S.A. 373.011 et seq.



Page S. Jackson and James W. Vance,
Tallahassee, for appellant.

Warren Cason and Brooks P. Hoyt, of
Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly,
Tampa, for appellees.


[1,2] It appears to us that as applied to
the facts appearing in the record of this
case we should affirm the decision of the
Circuit Court upholding the validity of
Chapter 22935, Acts of 1945. We do not
find in this record that the official action
taken in creating the Hillsborough County
Water Conservation District or fixing its
boundaries is invalid or unsupported by
substantial evidence. In the context of this
record we do not find that Chapter 22935,
Acts of 1945, has been repealed, either ex-
pressly or impliedly by Chapter 373, Florida
Statutes, F.S.A., or any later enactment.
However, we do not undertake to pass upon
any future questions that may arise con-
cerning the authority of the State Board of
Conservation in the exercise of its statutory
powers, including Chapter 373. to supersede
the authority of the Hillsborough County
Water Conservation District.

Affirmed.


THOMAS, Acting C. J., ROBERTS,
DREW, THORNAL, ERVIN and AD-
AMS, JJ., and TAYLOR, Circuit Judge,
concur.


THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
V.
Maurice WAGNER, Respondent.
No. 36570.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 17, 1968.


Disciplinary proceeding. The Supreme
Court, Thornal, J., held that where referee
found no indication of commingling of
funds, misappropriation of funds, fraud or
dishonest treatment of client or tamperiIg
with or in any way interfering with proco-


ses of administratic
cases found failure
funds to pay certain
witness fee, suspenE
30-day period was r
plish discipline.

Order according-

See also Fla., 19


I. Attorney and Client

In disciplinary r-
ment remains with the

2. Attorney and Client

Initial fact-findir
disciplinary matters is
eree and his findings
corded substantial we:.
turned unless clearly
in evidentiary support.

3. Attorney and Client C--
Neither the law
should lose sight of the
lawyer to conduct hims-
will cause laymen, and -
to have the highest -re
fidence in the members
sion.

4. Attorney and Client 4==-
Lawyer who under-
collect personal injury c:
professional duty to acco-:
ment of such funds in a
cords proper regard and
and legitimate expectatic-
itors, as well as those of

5. Attorney and Client G:-
Lawyer may not arb:-
fiance of his client's insrr-
that all of his client's b.
manner that would destr
confidence essential to t:
relationship.


770 Fla.


I ----~-.-.-.~_-, -_
:


1 01




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs